A Freedom of Information Act request has revealed a secretive USDA experiment going on in Maryland in which hundreds of kittens are bred for their feces only to be incinerated weeks later.
The post Congressman Exposes ‘Secretive’ USDA Experiments that are Incinerating Hundreds of Kittens appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
The average American is slated to eat about 800 burgers’ worth of beef in 2018, or about 222 pounds.1 Where you get this beef, how it’s raised and, ultimately, the way it is prepared make all the difference in how it affects your health and the environment. Source matters — greatly — and part of that includes knowing where your beef was raised. You’d probably assume that beef labeled “Product of the USA” was a product of the U.S., but this isn’t necessarily the case.
In a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue, ranch groups R-CALF USA and the Cattle Producers of Washington (CPoW) allege that millions of pounds of imported beef are being labeled as “Products of the USA.” They cite the Tariff Act of 1930, which requires imported beef to be labeled with its country-of-origin, including when it reaches the consumer, “unless the beef undergoes substantial transformation” in the U.S.2
However, the USDA has argued that imported beef can be treated as U.S. beef if it comes from a country with food safety standards that are equivalent to those in the U.S. As reported by the American Grassfed Association (AGA), “Consequently, the Secretary allows multinational meatpackers to label imported beef as ‘Products of the USA’ even if the imported beef receives only minor processing, such as unwrapping and rewrapping the package.”3
While it seems like labeling meat to let consumers know where it came from would be a straightforward requirement, it’s anything but. The original Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) rule, which was approved in 2002 and took effect in 2008, required the country of origin to be listed on meat labels. In 2013, the COOL rule was improved and meat packages were supposed to be required to label where the animal that provided your meat was born, raised and slaughtered.
At the time, industrial meat producers like Tyson, Cargill and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association were among those who spoke out against the rule, calling it unnecessarily costly and “shortsighted,” while fearing it would shrink demand for imported meat. Unfortunately for U.S. consumers seeking greater transparency in their food sources, the meat giants needn’t have worried because global dictators stepped in and essentially told consumers they don’t have the right to know.
In 2015, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled U.S. law requiring COOL labels on meat was illegal, as it discriminated against Canadian and Mexican meat companies and gave an advantage to U.S. meat producers.4 WTO even ordered more than $1 billion in trade sanctions annually against the U.S. if the COOL labels were not weakened or removed altogether. As reported by the Huffington Post:5
“[The] World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against the country-of-origin meat labels (COOL) that Americans rely on to make informed choices about their food provides a glaring example of how trade agreements can undermine U.S. public interest policies … Mexican and Canadian livestock producers and the U.S. meat processing industry fought fiercely against the policy’s initial enactment and then turn to deregulation-by-trade-agreement as Plan B.”
As it stands there is no USDA requirement that beef or pork be labeled to let consumers know what country it came from, despite the fact that Americans overwhelmingly want to know. A Consumers Union poll found that 93 percent of those who responded said they favored country-of-origin labeling.6 And why wouldn’t they? It’s one more way for you to know where your food comes from, providing once commonplace information that has disappeared in the industrial food arena.
By removing COOL, multinational companies are allowed to pass off imported meat as U.S.-raised, while U.S. farmers suffer. AGA noted, “Evidence submitted by the groups indicate that U.S. cattle producers received higher prices for their cattle when the origins of foreign beef was distinguished in the marketplace.” AGA president Will Harris continued:7
“The American Grassfed Family Farmer suffers financially, from this intentional anonymity, more than any other segment of the meat industry. Thank you R-Calf for bringing this injustice to light. Some American Consumers make the decision to pay a premium for beef that is produced in a humane and regenerative manner.
They do this, in part, to positively impact lands, animals and farm communities in the United States. Hiding the National Origin of products from these consumers is a travesty. It should not be tolerated.”
Meanwhile, the lawsuit against the USDA alleges that it’s actually illegal for the USDA to allow meat without country-of-origin labels because it violates the Meat Inspection Act. That act requires COOL on imported steaks and chops, according to Public Justice, which is representing the ranchers’ groups behind the lawsuit.
“And if you don’t believe our suit, believe the USDA itself,” Public Justice reported. “The department had COOL requirements in place for eight years, and it did so in order to be in compliance with the Meat Inspection Act. In other words, the USDA knows its current policies don’t follow the law; it is just captured by corporate interests. It’s time for that to change.”8
Located in Brazil, JBS is the world’s largest meat company, having acquired U.S. Swift and Company in 2007 and Smithfield’s beef business in 2008. In 2009, JBS became a majority stockholder in poultry giant Pilgrim’s Pride. In 2017, however, JBS became mostly known for being surrounded in scandals, particularly in their home country of Brazil, which is one of the world’s largest meat exporters.
The meat business, much like other large industries, has connections at various levels of government. In the case of meat exports from Brazil, those connections have reached all the way to the country’s president. In 2017, authorities in Brazil suspended 33 government employees and closed three slaughterhouses after finding factory managers had bribed politicians and inspectors to obtain meat export certificates for meat that had never been inspected.9
This was the largest organized federal police effort in Brazil, which police used to dismantle a “criminal organization” that had used kickbacks to aid the production and exportation of adulterated meat by meat producer JBS. As a result of corruption charges, Brazilian prosecutors fined JBS $3.1 billion, an assessment that came on the heels of another plea agreement between the Brazilian government and JBS that included reduced sentences for seven executives from the company.10
Although JBS did not disclose the corruption charges, investigations into President Michel Temer were launched following a leaked recording of Temer condoning a JBS executive to bribe politician Eduardo Cunha,11 serving 15 years after being found guilty of tax evasion, money laundering and corruption.
The U.S. and other countries temporarily halted imports of Brazilian beef following the scandal, and JBS began selling off some of its assets in Brazil and Europe, along with all of its U.S. cattle feedlots, which hold nearly 1 million cattle. R-CALF, which is part of the COOL lawsuit against the USDA, has also called for an investigation into JBS USA. Former Montana rancher Bill Bullard, R-CALF’s CEO, said in a news release:12
“Here we have a company whose business model includes bribery and other corrupt practices … We believe that it’s highly possible that this company is deploying this same corrupt business model here in the United States of America.”
When in search of the best beef for your health and the environment, it’s not only the country of origin that matters but also the conditions in which it’s raised. Grass fed is the clear winner. For starters, it’s better for you, with beneficial conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) levels increasing by two- to threefold when cattle are grass finished as opposed to grain finished.13 This is a significant benefit, as CLA is associated with a lower risk of cancer and heart disease and optimized cholesterol levels.
The ratio of dietary fats is also healthier in grass fed beef, and it is also higher in antioxidants like vitamins E and A, along with the enzymes superoxide dismutase and catalase, which mop up free radicals that could otherwise hasten oxidation and spoilage.14
Grain feeding cows also encourages the growth of E. coli in the animals’ gut, as it leads to a more acidic environment. Grain-fed cows live in a state of chronic inflammation, which increases their risk of infection and disease, and necessitates low doses of antibiotics in feed for disease-prevention purposes.15
This isn’t the case with grass fed cattle, which stay naturally healthy as they’re allowed access to pasture, sunshine and the outdoors. In a Consumer Reports study of 300 raw ground beef samples, grass fed beef raised without antibiotics was three times less likely to be contaminated with multidrug-resistant bacteria compared to conventional CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) samples.16
The grass fed beef was also less likely to be contaminated with E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus than the CAFO meat. So while giving you more nutrition, you’re also less likely to be exposed to drug-resistant pathogens when eating grass fed food.
Further, while CAFOs are top sources of air and water pollution, grass fed farming regenerates the soil and maintains ecological balance without relying on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Last, but certainly not least, the basic elements of animal welfare are missing from CAFOs, while animals raised on pasture are afforded the freedom to express their natural behaviors, making it the humane choice as well.
Imports of grass fed beef, which make up 75 percent to 80 percent of U.S. grass fed beef sales by value, pose a hurdle, however. Australia and Brazil can produce grass fed beef at a lower cost, as their climate allows for year-round grazing. But as with conventional beef, U.S. consumers may not know the grass fed beef they purchase isn’t from the U.S., because as long as a piece of imported beef passes through a USDA-inspected plant, it can be labeled as a “Product of the USA.”
According to Back to Grass: The Market Potential for U.S. Grassfed Beef, a report produced by a collaboration between sustainable agriculture and ecological farming firms, accurate labeling is imperative to “ensure that consumers are getting what they think they’re buying.”17 Not only may you be buying imported beef without knowing it, the grass fed beef you’re buying may not be as wholesome as you expect it to be, thanks to weak standards.
Unfortunately, the USDA is not doing nearly enough to provide transparency for U.S. consumers, which is why I encourage you to either buy direct from a trust farm or look for The American Grassfed Association (AGA) logo, a much-needed grass fed standards and certification for American-grown grass fed meat and dairy.18
The standard allows for greater transparency and conformity19 and is intended to ensure the humane treatment of animals and meet consumer expectations about grass fed meat and dairy, while being feasible for small farmers to achieve.
An AGA logo on a product lets you know the animals were fed a lifetime diet of 100 percent forage, were raised on pasture (not in confinement) and were not treated with hormones or antibiotics.20 In addition, the AGA logo on your meat and dairy ensures the animals were born and raised on American family farms,21 which is far more than can be said for the USDA-allowed, and incredibly misleading, “Product of U.S.A.” stamps that favor multinational corporations over small U.S. farmers.
Consumers must now face the fight against the globalist agenda of corporations like JBS, and an excellent start is by supporting the real U.S. grass fed farmers.
The post Stop Buying ‘Fake’ Beef appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.
For 99.9999% (our estimate) of Americans, there is great news on the way - retail bacon prices are about to plummet. However, with food accounting for 14% of CPI, we suspect the pork-price-pounding is about to become Janet Yellen"s new "transitory" problem.
In the first half of the year, the best performing commodity in the tradable universe was the USDA Boxed Pork Belly Cut 200lb, which had risen 87% year-to-date, with the media reassuring that the demand was not just seasonal.
For months, many market participants talked of a new paradigm for US pork prices, suggesting that in the future, (like avocado toast) bacon would be added to everything and the public"s appetite for it was insatiable (which makes perfect sense).
However, in the last few weeks, the bacon price has plunged 30%...
Which implies the price of a "rasher" at your local convenience store is about to tumble!!
And as the bacon price collapses, food in general is way down. The CRB FOOD index (US spot foodstuffs) has collapsed (dropping for 8 straight weeks)
(The index consists of: butter, cocoa, corn, hogs, lard, soybean oil, steers, sugar and Minny and KC wheat.)
More good news for Americans with stagnant wages!!
But, given that Janet Yellen and her merry band of piss-poor-prognisticators are desperate for transitory lowflation to pick up (remember they blamed the current downturn on unlimited phone plans), she may have a problem. With food accounting for 14% of the US CPI basket, it is not completely devastating, but does not help Yellen"s cause.
After last earnings season I noted without a strong rebound in consumer spending, I expect aggregate earnings growth to slow later this year (especially if declining energy prices cause credit to tighten). While asset inflation remains unchecked, consumer spending does not appear to be responding or accelerating. Two consumer companies on my possible buy list announced earnings this week – both suggest the operating environment remains challenging.
Casey General Stores (CASY), the convenience store operator, reported results on Monday with sales and earnings that were less than expected. Specifically EPS declined to $0.76 from $1.19 during the quarter and $4.48 vs. $5.73 for the year. During the quarter, same-store fuel gallons declined -0.5%, while grocery same-store comps increased 1.5% and prepared food/fountain comps were up 3.2%.
Management noted that similar to others in its sector, Casey’s “experienced downward pressure on customer traffic which had virtually impacted same-store sales across all of our categories.” Management blamed decelerating customer traffic on the weak agricultural economy, the difference in food away and food at home prices, and competitor promotional activities.
Management commented further on the agriculture economy saying, “The USDA anticipates either a flat to slightly declining farm income in calendar 2017. So we’d anticipate this piece of the challenging environment to continue to at least to the end of the calendar year.”
Labor costs were also discussed, with management calling labor very tight and wage pressures challenging. I thought the following comment was interesting, “It’s not uncommon for people to jump ship for $0.25 raise here and there, and so that has been a challenge.”
One of my favorite economic reports, the Marlboro Red Consumer Sentiment Indicator (MRCSI), was mentioned again this quarter and continued to suggest the consumer remains cautious.
Management commented, “I mean one of the things that we faced in the cigarette category, we do see, albeit it’s gradual but it’s been continuing for the next several quarters, a movement away from carton to pack purchasing. We’ve also seen it moving away from full value purchasing to a more discounted brand, which could be a generic brand.”
And finally, management had some interesting comments on their fiscal 2017 expectations versus actual results. Management explains, “…there’s no question that when we put our goals out for fiscal 2017, I’m not sure we fully anticipated the customer response, the consumer response I should say in relation to the economic conditions.” Management went on to note they are taking economic conditions into account more this year than they did last year.
Although Casey’s stock declined 8% on the news, trading at 18x EV/EBIT, it continues to trade over my estimated business valuation. Casey’s is one of the many high-quality companies I follow and like, but in my opinion, remains too expensive to generate future adequate absolute returns. Hence, it remains on my possible buy list, but not in my portfolio.
United Natural Foods (UNFI), the distributor of natural and organic foods, also announced earnings results this week. Although results appeared as expected, annual sales guidance was revised lower and its stock declined -4%.
Management noted the grocery environment remains challenging (side note: Isn’t it interesting restaurants often blame grocery stores for taking market share, yet grocers continue to struggle? Maybe it’s not where the consumer is spending, but how much the consumer has to spend).
Specifically, management stated,
“Net sales finished below our expectations in the third quarter driven by broad-based retail softness, the rationalization of business in conjunction with our margin initiatives and lack of inflation.”
“Same-store sales in many of our retail customers were under pressure or negative during the quarter. Our retail customers are facing competitive pressure not only from other food retailers but also from many channels now carrying assortment of better-for-you products.”
“…when you look at general same-store sales and year-over-year, quarter-over-quarter, many of the retailers across most of the channels are facing some real headwinds in terms of growth. And as part of that, we’ve seen certainly a fair number of store closings as retailers are coming together. And so in the near term, that’s been a real headwind for us.”
Kroger reports next week, hopefully providing us with more useful grocery and consumer data points. That said, for those waiting for the consumer to get the U.S. economy out of its 1-2% growth funk, further patience may be required. From a bottom-up perspective, I’m not seeing it.
WASHINGTON — Some supporters of organic farming are warning about a sneaky effort to impose what amounts to a federal tax on organic farmers and products.
The proposal by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) would collect funds from organic farmers and food producers to fund pro-organic advertising programs. The funding is called a “checkoff.”
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) supports the idea, but other organic organizations oppose it and are calling the checkoff a tax. The checkoff would impact all organic certificate holders who vote on the issue – whether they support or oppose the idea.
“After reviewing the proposal, we’ve determined that this Check-Off would be a grossly unfair tax imposed upon small personal care processors, and we question the legality of its application to non-food personal care businesses,” businesswoman Diana Kaye wrote at NoOrganicCheckoff.com.
The All-Natural Fertilizer That Can Double Your Garden Yield!
Kaye operates Terressentials, a small company that makes and markets organic care products.
Image source: Pixabay.com
The Cornucopia Institute also opposes the checkoff, saying it will harm family farms and small business people.
The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance sent an email to supporters stating, “Say no to a new tax on organic farmers!”
Checkoffs fund some popular and successful advertising campaigns including “Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner,” “Got Milk?” and the “Incredible Edible Egg.” The intent is to help farmers by increasing consumption of those products.
The problem by using a checkoff for organic food, though, is that – by rule – an organic advertising campaign cannot say anything negative about other foods.
“Checkoff dollars,” Cornucopia said on its website, “could almost certainly not be used to advocate for claims of organic food health, superior food quality, safety, sustainability or be used to expose differences between ‘natural’ and GMO-free food claims because these types of messages can be viewed as disparaging conventional food commodities.”
Another fear is unfair competition from big retailers and processors, such as Kroger and other large grocery stores, which would big beneficiaries of the publicity. Kroger, the nation’s largest standalone grocer, is expected to sell $16 billion worth of natural and organic products in 2017.
Another concern: the governing board for the checkoff program would be selected by the USDA. Farmers would have less than half of the seats, according to Cornucopia, which asserted that people “with political and corporate connections would likely be appointed by the USDA secretary.”
“We don’t trust OTA and USDA to speak for us in describing organic food to the public,” said Jim Crawford, an organic farmer at New Morning Farm in Pennsylvania. “We don’t want OTA and USDA to form another board, which is weighted in favor of corporate organics and which would control our message to the public.”
Persons can give their thoughts on the checkoff through a federal website. The USDA will close comments at midnight on April 19.
Do you support the checkoff program? Share your thoughts in the section below:
From Yahoo News By Laura Zuckerman (video at this link)
SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) – A “cyanide bomb” planted by U.S. predator-control agents targeting coyotes near homes and hiking trails in Idaho exploded when a boy handled the device, injuring him and killing his dog, authorities and relatives said on Friday.
Canyon Mansfield, 14, was playing with his yellow Labrador retriever, Casey, on Thursday afternoon near his home east of Pocatello when he saw what he thought was a sprinkler head on the ground and touched the device, causing it to detonate.
The explosion sprayed the boy and his 3-year-old, 90-pound (40 kg) pet with toxic cyanide gas, according to the boy’s mother, Theresa Mansfield.
“Canyon said there was a bang like a bomb, then an explosion of an orange substance that covered him and Casey, who was writhing in pain on the ground before he died right in front of Canyon,” she said.
Her husband, Pocatello physician Mark Mansfield, rushed to the scene and pounded on the dog’s chest in a futile effort to revive the animal.
The family and first-responders underwent decontamination procedures and the boy, who was sprayed in the face, was tested for cyanide poisoning at a hospital for the second time Friday, officials and family members said.
The device, called an M-44, was among several placed in the area by Wildlife Services, an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that targets coyotes, wolves, cougars, foxes and other animals considered nuisances to farms and ranches.
The agency has been sued by conservation groups claiming that its programs to poison, trap and shoot various predator species violate federal environmental and wildlife protection laws.
Thursday’s incident marked the first “unintentional lethal take of a dog” by an M-44 in Idaho since 2014, and Wildlife Services seeks to minimize hazards to pets and humans by posting warnings, spokesman Andre Bell said.
“These devices are only set at the request of and with permission from property owners or managers,” the agency said. They are “spring-activated” and “not explosive devices,” it said.
Bannock County Sheriff Lorin Nielsen, who described the devices as “cyanide bombs,” said no notice was given to authorities about their placement.
“I’ve been a sheriff here for 20 years and worked for the office for 39 years, and I’ve never heard of leaving around a device that emits poisonous gas,” he said.
Nielsen said he intended to meet federal officials next week to “get to the bottom of this.”
Theresa Mansfield said Wildlife Services had not sought to contact the family to apologize for the incident.
EastIdahoNews.com shared this update:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services, which placed the devices in the area, issued the following statement Friday.
APHIS’ Wildlife Services confirms the unintentional lethal take of a dog in Idaho. As a program made up of individual employees many of whom are pet owners, Wildlife Services understands the close bonds between people and their pets and sincerely regrets such losses. Wildlife Services has removed M-44s in that immediate area. Wildlife Services is completing a thorough review of the circumstances of this incident, and will work to review our operating procedures to determine whether improvements can be made to reduce the likelihood of similar occurrences happening in the future.
The unintentional lethal take of a dog is a rare occurrence. Wildlife Services policies and procedures are designed to minimize unintentional take or capture of domestic pets. It posts signs and issues other warnings to alert pet owners when wildlife traps or other devices are being used in an area for wildlife damage management. M-44s are spring-activated devices that release cyanide when they are activated through upward pressure or pulling. These devices are only set at the request of and with permission from property owners or managers. This is the first unintentional take with an M-44 device in Idaho since 2014.
Wildlife Services provides expert federal leadership to responsibly manage one of our nation’s most precious resources – our wildlife. We seek to resolve conflict between people and wildlife in the safest and most humane ways possible, with the least negative consequences to wildlife overall. Our staff is composed of highly-skilled wildlife professionals who are passionate about their work to preserve the health and safety of people and wildlife.
(This is Idaho. Is the UDSA doing this in your state? Are you sure? In this case, the county sheriff didn’t even know!)
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
Maybe it’s just nostalgia talking, but the slaughtering, processing, packaging, and distribution of animals used to be so much simpler.
For hundreds of years, the meat-packing industry bore the responsibility for transforming Bessie the Cow into carnivores’ favorite source of protein, and more recently the Food Safety and Inspection Service inspectors of the U.S. Department of Agriculture ensured that the finished product was “safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged.”
Not so anymore. Due to agency rules issued during the Obama era, FSIS inspectors enjoy expanded duties, including monitoring facilities for any “disrespectful” or “insult[ing]” communication (no, not among the animals). Should they uncover any such communication, inspectors are empowered to take “corrective action,” even if that involves slicing and dicing fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Predictably, unleashing meat inspectors to police the exercise of free speech—with guidelines that provide only vague directional prodding—is the equivalent of releasing a bull in a china shop. At least, it was for Don and Ellen Vander Boon, the owners of West Michigan Beef Company. (To be fair, Mythbusters found that bulls can be surprisingly respectful of grandma’s china. The same cannot be said for the USDA and the First Amendment.)
The USDA threatened to shut down this family-owned company, not because of health concerns, or because short ribs were incorrectly labeled as plate ribs (incidentally, you would not believe the labeling requirements), or because People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals infiltrated their ranks in some sort of hostile takeover bid. Rather, the so-called offense consisted of an article Don placed in the breakroom.
The breakroom at West Michigan Beef includes tables that essentially serve as a repository for newspapers, magazines, articles, and other forms of literature that employees or the owners wish to share with those who care to read them. Think of it as a pre-technological Facebook. Importantly, no one is required to read the materials, any more than I am required to flip through a two-year old copy of People while sitting in my dentist’s lobby, or to read my friend’s Facebook post about replacing smoke detector batteries (true story).
In 2015, following the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that purported to redefine marriage for the entire country, various employees shared articles and information related to the decision. Don participated by sharing an article that expressed the traditional Christian view that God designed marriage as a union between a man and a woman and set forth reasons for that position.
When a USDA public health veterinarian, the on-site inspector, saw the article in the breakroom, well, he had a cow. He removed the article and reported it to his USDA supervisor. The pair stampeded into Don’s office and threatened to remove USDA inspectors—effectively shutting down the facility—if Don returned the article to the breakroom, stating the article was offensive and harassing under expanded agency rules.
In an effort to protect the integrity and critical function of the National Organic Program (NOP), food and farm policy research group, the Cornucopia Institute, has delivered more than 5,000 letters from concerned farmers and consumers to the USDA urging it to take immediate action.
The Wisconsin-based group has been vocal about its criticism of the NOP and the governance of the National Organic Standards Board, which makes recommendations for the USDA organic program. In recent years, Cornucopia has suggested that corporate interests are influencing policymaking for the organic label and mismanagement of the program is threatening organic farmers and the nation’s organic food supply. It’s also been highly critical of Deputy Administrator, Miles McEvoy, who oversees the program.
The group says the current USDA management, led by McEvoy, is weakening the NOP by failing to enforce fraud and alleged violations of organic regulations as they pertain to numerous issues, including animal agriculture. Cornucopia has been particularly critical of Horizon Organic, the leading producer or organic dairy products in North America, for its use of conventional factory farm style animal housing and providing questionable access to outdoors for its animals, despite NOP regulations forbidding such practices.
The group also points to several other issues, including allowing hydroponic farming—foods grown without organic soil—to utilize the USDA organic label; a “flood” of organic imports from China, India, Central America, and the former Soviet Bloc states, which the group says is hurting U.S. organic farmers; hindering the Sunset review process of non-organic materials the group says are often allowed because of pressures by special interest groups; and what Cornucopia calls a violation of the Organic Foods Production Act, improper governance of the USDA and NOP by its own staff.
“We want organics to live up to the true meaning envisioned by the founders of this movement,” Mark Kastel, Cornucopia’s Senior Farm Policy Analyst, said in a statement. “For both organic farmers and organic consumers, that means sound environmental stewardship, humane animal husbandry, wholesome and nutritious food derived from excellent soil fertility, and economic justice for those who produce our food. The USDA needs to act to preserve consumer trust in the organic label.”
The Cornucopia Institute also notes that Consumer Reports, the leading nonprofit conducting unbiased product reviews, recently downgraded the USDA organic label’s credibility in large part due to issues brought to light by the watchdog group.
“The corporations that are part of the Organic Trade Association, like Driscoll’s, General Mills (Cascadian Farms, Muir Glenn, Annie’s), WhiteWave (Horizon, Silk, Earthbound Farms, Wallaby) and Clif Bar, have the power to trade the credibility of the organic seal for short-term profit,” says Kastel. “The USDA needs to step in and protect the public.”
Find Jill on Twitter and Instagram
Related on Organic Authority
Are Widespread Cage-Free Eggs a Real Victory for Hens and Consumers?
USDA Moves to More Humane Animal Treatment for Organic Label Under Proposed Rule
Lawsuit Over Major Changes to Organic Foods Production Act Moves Ahead Against Ag Secretary
