Eric Schlosser's Speech to Consumers Union, Part 3

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 17:12:48 PM PDT

Eric Schlosser's Speech to Consumers Union, Part 2

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:03:36 AM PDT

Eric Schlosser's Speech to Consumers Union

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 22:59:36 PM PDT

80+ Groups Oppose Banning GMO Labeling

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 20:39:04 PM PDT

During the first week in May, members of the international community are meeting in Canada to discuss international food labeling standards. This is a part of Codex Alimentarius, a UN agency that develops food and safety standards (and freaks a lot of people out). The U.S. (specifically the USDA and FDA) has drafted a position that opposes a Codex document allowing countries to each set their own rules on labeling genetically modified foods. In other words, the U.S. wants to keep the entire world from labeling GMOs. They want this because U.S. companies make a fortune selling GM seeds, and the U.S. produces a large percentage of the world's genetically modified crops. And one of our governement's top food safety gurus, Michael Taylor, used to work for Monsanto. (That's not the reason they give for their opposition, of course. But who are they kidding?)

Unfortunately (for Michael Taylor), the people of the United States don't all agree with Michael Taylor. Some of us WANT GMOs to be labeled. At the very least, other countries should have the right to require labels even if our country does not. Thus, 80+ groups have signed onto a letter to the USDA and FDA opposing their opposition to Codex letting countries set their own policies on GMO labeling. (In other words, the signers of the letter WANT countries to be permitted to require GMO labeling if they wish.)

Signers of the letter include Consumers Union, Food Democracy Now, the Union of Concerned Scientists, R-CALF USA, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and a vast number of organic food, farming, and consumer groups, anti-GMO groups, pesticide reform groups, food companies, and farms. You can view Consumers Union's press release about the letter below, and you can view the letter here [PDF].

The Tester Amendments Part 2: Exemptions for Small Facilities

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 23:10:15 PM PDT

The second part says that small facilities (those grossing under $500,000 per year) do not have to follow the new traceability laws other than keeping records of one step forward and one step back (i.e. "I bought these tomatoes from Green Valley Farm and I sold them to ABC Grocery").

On page 133, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

(l) DEFERRAL TO STATE REGULATION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES. This section shall not apply to a facility for a year if the average annual adjusted gross income of such facility for the previous 3-year period is less than $500,000.

On page 200, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

(C) LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES. In the case of a facility, in a year in which the average annual adjusted gross income of such facility for the previous 3-year period is less than $500,000, the recordkeeping requirements under this section shall be limited to records regarding the immediate suppliers and immediate subsequent recipients of such facility.

The Tester Amendments Part 1: Exemption from Produce Safety Standards

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 22:25:27 PM PDT

Here's the language of Tester's amendment:

On page [146], between lines [18] and [19], insert the following:

(f) EXEMPTION FOR DIRECT FARM MARKETING. This section shall not apply to a farm if, with respect to such farm, the annual value of sales of food directly to consumers, hotels, restaurants, or institutions exceeds the annual value of sales of food to all other buyers.

Below, you can see exactly what farms selling directly to consumers and institutions are exempted from. Essentially, they won't be required to follow the FDA's "science-based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of those types of fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities for which the Secretary has determined that such standards minimize the risk of serius adverse health consequences or death."

This requirement for "science-based" safety standards scares the hell out of many small farmers and for good reason. The government tends to think that something sterile that has been sprayed with every pesticide in the book is safer than something organic if the organic item has been touched by human hands or grown with manure as fertilizer.

That's not to say that the government has bad intentions here. I don't think they do. I don't doubt that this part of the bill was written with nothing other than food safety in mind. But also remember that humans have farmed for millennia without an FDA to tell them how to farm safely. It's only now that we've got big, industrialized food production that we see these food outbreaks where one screw-up can sicken people in every state in the country and result in millions of pounds of food recalled.

Consumers Union is concerned about this amendment because they are afraid that enormous farms (domestic or foreign) may engage in direct sales and then qualify for this exemption. And that may be true. I would definitely prefer this amendment specify that the exemption is only for farms grossing under $500,000 per year. However, I'd still rather see this amendment pass as is than not. If this amendment passes, it won't do anything to make food LESS SAFE. It's not changing the status quo. It just makes the bill a little less encompassing than it would otherwise be.

Concerns With the Tester Amendment

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 18:09:52 PM PDT

However, I want to make sure I give everyone full information about these amendments as much as possible. After all, political philosophies differ and you may examine the facts and come down on a different side than I do, given the pros and cons at stake. I just got an email from Consumers Union saying that they do NOT support the Tester amendments. Here's why (below). And, as I make clear below, I'm still in support of the Tester amendments, even after reading through all of Consumers Unions concerns.

BPA In Our Food and In Our Bodies

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 13:00:43 PM PST

Consumers Union Holds Out Olive Branch to Sustainable Foodies

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

I've found myself caught in the middle of these two viewpoints. Obviously, we need food safety reform. But really - the small, sustainable farmers are not the major problem in our food system when it comes to safety. Can't we have our food safety reform that governs the big guys that make up 95% of our food system while leaving the other 5% alone? Sure, small, sustainable farmers aren't immune from food safety problems, but they simply don't have the capacity to sicken as many people as large operations by virtue of their small size. I believe the benefits they provide us far outweigh their risks, and leaving them alone in order to pass reforms over the rest of the system is well worth it.

Today, I'm pleased to share a statement by Jean Halloran of Consumers Union, who has been banging hard on the drum of food safety reform from the start, where they reach out to sustainable foodies to work together with them toward reform.

The Foodie Infiltration of the USDA Continues

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 15:57:44 PM PDT

According to the USDA, here's what her new job entails:

Marketing and Regulatory Programs facilitates domestic and international marketing of U.S. agricultural products and ensures the health and care of animals and plants. The agency also actively participates in setting national and international standards.

Food policy expert Steph Larsen says the following about this appointment:

The Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs has a diverse set of responsibilities, from insuring robust agricultural competition to providing opportunities to sell products in the U.S. and abroad. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is responsible for insuring that livestock producers are treated equally regardless of their size and that corporations do not engage in unfair competitive practices. I think she is a good choice to implement changes that will increase fair livestock competition, which in turn will help small and mid-sized livestock producers.

Sampler Platter

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 15:00:00 PM PDT

• Tom Laskawy comments on the reports that phthalates make us fat(ter). Here are my two cents: The focus on food should continue because crap eating is crap eating whether or not you get fat from it, and the focus on eliminating phthalates (used in PVC plastic) should ALSO continue because we know they do bad things OTHER THAN make us fat.

• Mark Bittman tells how to make sunchoke fritters. I'm a fan of sunchokes, but I've never tried them as fritters. (In fact, being raised in a fat-phobic Jewish family, the only time a year I got anything that remotely resembled a "fritter" was Hanukkah.)

• Alternet takes on marijuana legalization. They say 4 in 10 have smoked it, yet millions still get busted. And among those millions are my own friends and family, and perhaps yours too. The ridiculous war on pot hurts all of us. It's time to call a truce, or maybe even just wave a white flag and admit that pot is the rightful winner.

• This idea of highrise farms gets trotted out every so often as the possible silver bullet to solve all of our problems. I'm a skeptic. What do you think?

• No patents on seeds? Marion Nestle recommends we check out a report that calls for just that.

• Marion Nestle also shares info on banned pesticides in Chilean farmed salmon. One more good reason to say no to farmed fish. Particularly farmed carnivorous fish.

• Good things come in threes, right? I've got a third good one from Marion Nestle. The title is Who needs bioterrorism when we've got manure lagoons. I soooo agree. Osama doesn't need to make us sick from our food supply because we do that all by ourselves.

• Consumers Union speaks up about an issue I've been yelling about on this site - the FDA wants to delay a new "feed ban" rule by 60 days, leaving us open to increased risk of mad cow disease for an additional two months.

• Scary news from Environmental Health News (although not surprising at all): Together, two common pesticides may increase risk of Parkinson's disease.

• And now for some good news: The LA Times reports on hospitals adding fresh, organic foods to their menus. Yay!

Victory in Kansas!!!!!! Gov. Sebelius Vetoes rbGH Labeling Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 18:11:57 PM PDT

Kansas farms, consumer groups and businesses Catalpa Grove Gardens, Pretty Prairie, Community Mercantile Consumer Coop, Creek Four Mill, Iwig Family Dairy, Janzen Family Farms, Kansas City Food Circle, Kayala Emu Estates, Hesston, Larson Acres, Little Red Hen Bakery, Norm's Flour, Sierra Club Kansas Chapter, Spring Creek Ranch, Wichitaw Food Coop, AllergyKids, Breast Cancer Action, The Cornucopia Institute, Organic Consumers Association, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Media and Democracy, Consumers Union, Family Farm Defenders, Food and Water Watch, The Humane Society of the United States, Institute for Responsible Technology, National Family Farm Coalition, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Sierra Club, and Stonyfield Farm, Inc.

... and me) have been asking Sebelius to veto this bill since it passed the Kansas state legislature a few weeks ago. I, for one, did not expect her to actually veto it. I am THRILLED that she did veto it and even more thrilled that a public servant who obviously listens to citizens' opinions as well as science will soon take the reins at the Department of Heath and Human Services, which overseas the FDA. The FDA is the agency that legalized the growth hormone rbGH in the first place and I hope to see that decision reversed under Sebelius based on all of the facts that have been revealed since the hormone was first legalized in the early 1990s.

Sebelius' statement from her veto as well as several reactions from various leaders in the food community are posted below.

Consumers Union's Food Safety Wishlist

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

Consumers Union to Vilsack: We Want Better Meat Labels

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PST

1. Withdraw the "naturally raised" label - CU criticizes the current naturally raised claim because it only means that the animal was raised without certain antibiotics, animal byproducts, and growth promotants. In a poll, consumers want the label to mean the animal:
   • Had a diet free of chemicals, drugs and animal byproducts (86%)
   • Was raised in a natural environment (85%)
   • Ate a natural diet (85%)
   • Was not cloned or genetically engineered (78%)
   • Had access to the outdoors (77%)
   • Was treated humanely (76%)
   • Was not confined (68%)

2. Close loopholes in Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

3. Close loopholes in "grass fed" standard - In November 2007, a new standard for a "grass fed" label went into effect. However, any company already using a "grass fed" claim was grandfathered in and allowed to continue making the claim, even if they didn't meat the standards.

4. "Harmonize" meat marketing claims across meat, poultry and dairy items - Consumers get confused when labels mean different things on meat, dairy, and eggs. For example, the grass fed standard currently only applies to ruminants (cud-chewing animals like cows) but the label also appears on poultry, milk, and eggs.

5. Define "raised without antibiotics" label claim:

   While most consumers believe that this claim means no antibiotics or antimicrobial drugs were administered, there is in fact no standard for the term.

6. Ensure consistency of "organic" label to scope of products covered - Mostly this is a request for the USDA to clean up the standards for "organic" farmed fish. This standard is currently in progress and quite frankly, it stinks. The current standard the USDA is considering allows "organic" fish to eat non-organic food. WTF?

7. Maintain "treated with irradiation" labeling for meat from irradiated surface cuts - The USDA is currently considering a request from the American Meat Institute to allow meat irradiation without labeling. Please, oh please, USDA - don't do this!

"Organic" Fish: A Bad Decision by NOSB

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:30:50 PM PST

Consumers Union sums up the problem with the new standards as follows:

Fish to be fed food other than 100% organic feed-the gold standard that must be met by other USDA-certified organic livestock;

Fishmeal used to feed farmed fish from wild fish-which has the potential to carry mercury and PCBs; and

Open net cages to be used-which flush pollution, disease and parasites from open net fish farms directly into the ocean, adversely impacting wild fish supply, sustainability and the health of the oceans.

When you eat an organic apple, you can feel good that you aren't biting into a bunch of pesticides or other toxins. When you drink a glass of organic milk, you can feel good that you won't be drinking antibiotics and growth hormones. But if this recommendation by NOSB becomes a reality, you will have no such assurances if you eat a "USDA Certified Organic" fish.

While some members of NOSB admitted they were under pressure to OK this from the aquaculture industry, it's clear what American consumers want:

Just this week, a Consumers Union Poll revealed that 93 percent of Americans think that fish labeled as "organic" should be produced by 100 percent organic feed, like all other organic animals. Nine in 10 consumers also agreed that "organic" fish farms should be required to recover waste and not pollute the environment and 57 percent are concerned about ocean pollution caused by "organic" fish farms. Nearly 30,000 signatures have been collected in favor of maintaining strong standards for the organic label for fish.