The Battle to Defend Organic Labeling against Big Ag's Influence
The debate over the perceived high cost of organic food has escalated in the last decade as economic interests drive conventional and organic industries to compete for market share. As consumers become more aware of the differences and increasingly opt for “organic,” big agribusiness senses an opportunity to snatch a bigger piece of the pie by chipping away at organic standards to suit their own interests and include more of their products. But what exactly is “organic”?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has stringent requirements for labeling food “organic,” prohibiting synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, antibiotics, sewage sludge, and genetic engineering. Organic farmers must also demonstrate that they employ sustainable and regenerative practices for soil biology that preserve biodiversity and conserve natural resources (Environmental Working Group, 2019; USDA, 2023). Conversely, conventional farming supported by big agribusiness can leverage chemical pesticides and herbicides that meet EPA-acceptable risk standards (1 additional cancer in 1,000,000) and maximum residue limits, which are calculated individually and do not consider long-term bioaccumulation. These chemicals and associated technologies make the conventional farming process much cheaper, and these cost-saving advantages are passed on to the consumer (NPIC, 2023; US EPA, 2023).
A growing body of research supports holistic nutritionists’ and functional medicine practitioners' claims that organic foods are more nutrient-dense, decrease pesticide exposure, and show demonstrable health benefits. For instance, a 2014 study published in the British Journal of Nutrition showed that organic produce and grains have higher concentrations of antioxidants and fewer pesticide residues after reviewing 343 peer-reviewed studies comparing organic and conventionally grown crops (Barański et al., 2014). Rembiałkowska (2016) reached the same conclusions, and Vigar et al. (2019, p. 1) observed “significant positive outcomes … where increased organic intake was associated with reduced incidence of” multiple health pathologies. Nevertheless, every study calls for additional long-term research to link organic produce consumption to improved health conclusively.
While science strives for conclusive proof, the absence of (conclusive) evidence is not evidence of absence! Organizations like the Environmental Working Group and the Institute for Functional Medicine are increasingly vocal about the dangers of prolonged pesticide exposure. As consumers, we have the power to choose. This choice affords us some form of control over our health, considering that dozens of pesticides that are illegal overseas continue to be used in the U.S., and crops sprayed with unlawful amounts of pesticides are still imported (EWG, 1995; Mercado, 2021; Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied, 2023). For instance, the EPA has established tolerances for glyphosate on a wide range of human and animal food crops in the U.S., including corn, soybean, oil seeds, grains, and some fruits and vegetables, ranging from 0.1 to 400 parts per million (ppm) (Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied, 2022). On the opposite spectrum, 21 countries have now banned or restricted the use of this carcinogenic herbicide (Sustainable Pulse Research, 2019). Big Ag is well aware of the laws of supply and demand, and as more consumers become health-conscious and choose organic while big discount stores like Walmart step into this market, their lobbying efforts to weaken the criteria for what can be labeled "organic" are growing too. According to some estimates, in 2022, agribusinesses spent $169 million on lobbying efforts, and 61% of their lobbyists were former U.S. government employees (OpenSecrets, 2023).
While some successful efforts by the financial and gun industry made headlines, transparency is usually lacking as lobbyists are not required to disclose which government officials they meet with, shielding the public from monitoring whom vested interests target for advocacy (New York Times, 2022; Slodysko, 2022). However, the “revolving door,” the phenomenon of senior government and industry officials taking positions in agencies or companies they were previously regulating or regulated by, is alive and well. For instance, in 2018, the American Sugarbeet Growers' Association disclosed “lobbying six officials who previously held positions with private agribusiness groups, including Dow AgroSciences, Farm Credit Services, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, U.S. Wheat Associates, and the National Grain and Feed Associations” and were working in several consumer safety and regulatory roles at the EPA, USDA, and USTR (Morse & Papich, 2018). In addition, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), an independent panel created by Congress to advise the USDA, has been increasingly infiltrated by members of the Organic Trade Association (OTA), agribusiness' most prominent lobby group. OTA has a well-established history of actively working on expanding the inclusion of synthetic compounds as “organic,” minimizing infractions and outright fraud of organic-labeled imported feeds, lobbying Congress to suppress more stringent local regulations, opposing higher welfare standards for livestock and poultry labeled as organic, and including hydroponic crops “grown in a fertilizer solution rather than rich nutrient-dense soil” as organic options (Kastel, 2023a; Kastel, 2023b).
So, what can we do to stop vested interests from diluting organic standards?
Stay informed and get involved! As concerned citizens, let your Congress representatives know that you are paying attention and that these attempts need to be stopped. We must also support watchdog and advocacy groups that monitor agribusiness self-serving lobbying efforts aiming to eliminate competition from small farmers who follow stringent organic agricultural standards prioritizing regenerative practices and animal welfare. Lastly, remember that your choices matter! Put your purchasing power to work and support local, small farmers by joining CSAs and buying from farmers' markets. We are an army of consumers and our health matters!
References
Barański, M., Średnicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., Seal, C., Sanderson, R., Stewart, G. B., Benbrook, C., Biavati, B., Markellou, E., Giotis, C., Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J., Rembiałkowska, E., Skwarło-Sońta, K., Tahvonen, R., Janovská, D., Niggli, U., Nicot, P., & Leifert, C. (2014). Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses.British Journal of Nutrition, 112(5), 794-811. https://10.1017/S0007114514001366
Environmental Working Group. (2019, Organic: The Original Clean Food. Retrieved Oct 12, 2023, from https://www.ewg.org/research/packagedorganic
EWG. (1995, Feb 1). Forbidden Fruit | Illegal Pesticides in the US Food Supply. Retrieved Oct 11, 2023, from https://www.ewg.org/research/forbidden-fruit-illegal-pesticides-us-food-supply
Kastel, M. (2023a, -06-19T23:44:32+00:00). Corporate Foxes Guarding the Organic Chicken Coop. OrganicEye. Retrieved Oct 11, 2023, from https://organiceye.org/corporate-foxes-guarding-the-organic-chicken-coop/
Kastel, M. (2023b, -05-02). Organic Legitimacy Betrayed by an Unholy Agribusiness/USDA Alliance. OrganicEye. Retrieved Oct 11, 2023, from https://organiceye.org/organic-legitimacy-betrayed-by-an-unholy-agribusiness-usda-alliance/
Mercado, A. (2021, -12-14). Pesticides can hurt agricultural communities—so why do farmers fight back against bans? https://www.popsci.com/environment/why-banning-pesticides-is-hard/
Morse, J., & Papich, S. (2018, Apr 26). Lobbying forms show how agriculture group targets officials with industry ties for advocacy. CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Retrieved Oct 11, 2023, from https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/leveraging-the-revolving-door-lobbying-forms-show-how-agriculture-group-targets-officials-with-industry-ties-for-advocacy/
New York Times. (2022, May 22). Where Senate Republicans Stand on Gun Legislation. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/25/us/gun-control-republican-senators.html
NPIC. (2023, Jun 14). Organic and Conventionally Grown Food. Retrieved Oct 11, 2023, from http://npic.orst.edu/health/ovc.html
Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied. (2022, Feb 28). Questions and Answers on Glyphosate. FDA. Retrieved Nov 9, 2023, from https://www.fda.gov/food/pesticides/questions-and-answers-glyphosate
Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied. (2023). FDA Releases FY 2020 Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report.Fda, https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-releases-fy-2020-pesticide-residue-monitoring-report
OpenSecrets. (2023, Aug 30). Agribusiness Lobbying Profile. OpenSecrets. Retrieved Oct 11, 2023, from https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2022&id=A
Slodysko, B. (2022, Aug 13). Sinema took Wall Street money while killing tax on investors. https://apnews.com/article/sinema-took-wall-street-money-while-killing-tax-on-investors-0c07f73ba6db92f87fa33f1aad8dbeac
Sustainable Pulse Research. (2019, May 28). Glyphosate Herbicides Now Banned or Restricted in 21 Countries Worldwide –. https://sustainablepulse.com/2019/05/28/glyphosate-herbicides-now-banned-or-restricted-in-17-countries-worldwide-sustainable-pulse-research/
US EPA, O. (2023, Sept). About Pesticide Tolerances. Retrieved Oct 11, 2023, from https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-tolerances/about-pesticide-tolerances
USDA. (2023, Organic Regulations | Agricultural Marketing Service. Retrieved Oct 11, 2023, from https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic
Comments