November 28, 2005
Higher standards | Blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey continues to stir national debate over organic food rules
By Sean Donahue
Maine blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey is once again shaking up the U.S. organic food industry ˆ but this time he's not pleased with the effect he's having. Harvey first attracted attention in 2002, when he sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its management of national organic food production guidelines ("Harvey vs. the USDA," Nov. 25, 2002). He ultimately prevailed in June of this year, forcing the USDA to adopt stricter standards for the ingredients allowed in foods that are labeled "USDA organic." In October, though, Harvey was once again the center of national attention when Congress approved an amendment to an agricultural appropriations bill that reversed the effects of his lawsuit.
A crucial piece of that suit and Congress' subsequent amendment pertains to the use of synthetic substances in organic food processing. Harvey's lawsuit sought to eliminate a list of 38 such products previously approved for use in organic foods; Congress acted to reinstate that list in the organic standards. But even the recent amendment is far from the end of the matter, say Harvey and others in the organic industry.
In fact, the move has re-ignited a debate within the organic industry about the nature of the "organic" label. The amendment also created a rift in the organic community by enacting rules that Harvey and others say benefit big food processors ˆ attracted, they say, to the $11 billion organic food industry but not entirely committed to its values ˆ over small farmers and producers. "The [organic] law was based on the assumption that organic foods are 100% organic, but the trend has been just the opposite, with the USDA expanding the list of nonorganic and synthetic materials allowed," says Harvey. "It's just a question of dollars and cents."
The Massachusetts-based Organic Trade Association, which lobbied Congress to reinstate the pre-Harvey standards and which has been accused of catering to big players in the organic food industry like General Mills, which owns the organic brand Cascadian Farms, calls those accusations nonsense. The OTA argues that Harvey's lawsuit would have hurt both large and small organic growers and farmers and slowed the growth of the entire industry. But within Maine's organic community ˆ which is made up predominantly by small growers and processors ˆ there's no consensus about how either the Harvey lawsuit or Congress' reversal of that ruling would impact local businesses.
Some small farmers and food processors like Harvey say allowing the use of synthetics can give large processors a cost advantage over companies that stick to using only natural ingredients. They add that those products don't even belong in products carrying the organic label. Other Maine companies agree with the OTA's stance, saying that Harvey's standards would make it more difficult or impossible to produce their goods. Still other Maine farmers and companies say the shifting fate of that list of 38 substances has no effect on the way they grow their food or process their products.
Even those growers and producers, though, share the biggest concern in the organic industry: that confusion and acrimony over the standards will spill over into consumer opinion, shaking consumer confidence in the value of the organic label. "Most of Maine's farmers didn't need this amendment. We're more of a fresh fruit and vegetable state," says Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. "But the label and loyalty those people have been building over decades are at risk."
The CO2 example
USDA approved the list of 38 synthetic substances for use in organic food processing in 2002, after several years of debate among the industry, consumers and the National Organic Standards Board. Most of those substances ˆ such as the leavening agent ammonium bicarbonate and the thickener low-methoxy pectin ˆ are used to turn organic raw materials like wheat and milk into packaged foods like crackers and yogurt.
Faced with the prospect of changing their processing practices after three years of adhering to the standards, many organic food companies turned to the OTA to help preserve those standards, says executive director Katherine DiMatteo. In Maine, even some companies that believed they were unaffected by the changes found themselves facing potential disruptions.
Aaron Anker, co-owner of Brownfield-based granola maker Grandy Oats, says he didn't pay much attention to the debate at first because his company's 100% organic products contain no synthetic ingredients. Then he learned that some of his suppliers stored their grain using carbon dioxide ˆ one of the 38 approved substances ˆ as an anti-spoiling and anti-pest agent. As a businessman, Anker knew that changing the organic standards threatened to increase grain spoilage, and could hurt his supply of ingredients. As a strong believer in the philosophy behind organic foods, he felt comfortable with that particular substance and application. "I have no problem with it," says Anker. "CO2 is naturally occurring in the air, and I don't think it's going to be toxic to my food or my environment."
Eliminating CO2 from the organic standards wouldn't hurt organic grain farmers like Matt Williams, however. The Linneus-based grower, who supplies wheat to companies such as Borealis Breads, says he doesn't need the substance. He simply cleans his storage silos regularly and uses a layer of ground seashells at the bottom to prevent insects from coming up through the earth. "Here in the Northeast, storage pests are not as prevalent as they are in other parts of the country," says Williams. "It's not a big issue for us."
Stories like Williams' echo Harvey's argument that food producers can ˆ and should ˆ find non-synthetic and organic alternatives to many of the synthetic substances previously approved by USDA. Harvey cites his own blueberry butter made with an organic form of pectin derived from the apple pulp left over from cider pressing. Although he acknowledges that the pulp is not widely available, he argues that forcing large organic yogurt and jam makers to drop synthetic pectin would spark huge demand for the product, creating a new revenue source for organic orchards.
That's not the way the OTA sees it, though. The group argues that there simply are no natural alternatives for some of the 38 approved synthetic substances, such as baking powder. And being unable to comply with a 100% organic standard would force many companies to give up their "USDA organic" label in exchange for the "Made with organic ingredients" label reserved for products that contain at least 70% organic ingredients.
Because manufacturers widely perceive that label to be less attractive to consumers, the OTA's DiMatteo says the Harvey lawsuit could have forced many companies to abandon the organic market altogether, unable to attract customers or charge the organic price premium to which they're accustomed. "No [OTA members] I spoke with are supportive of the 'made with' label," she says. "They could see from their consumer focus groups and research that people don't like that label and don't respond to it."
Those fears may be overblown, however, says Rockland-based organic wine merchant Paul Chartrand. He's finding equal success selling wines labeled "organic" and labeled "made with organic grapes" (see "In vino veritas," p. 21).
Reaching consumers
Some in the Maine organic industry fear that consumer perception of the entire USDA organic program may take a hit because of the debate. Russell Libby of MOFGA says he's particularly upset by the process through which Congress reinstated those organic standards. Having a conference committee attach a non-funding-related amendment to an appropriations bill smacks of Washington business-as-usual, says Libby, and creates the appearance of food industry lobbyists getting heard over the hundreds of thousands of consumers who he says called to support the changes in Harvey's lawsuit. "It seems to me that organic has been presented as higher standard, so the process [of establishing that standard] has to go through more scrutiny," says Libby.
Several national consumer groups share Libby's concerns, including Consumers Union, the New York-based nonprofit that publishes Consumer Reports, and the Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association. Those groups plan to continue fighting against the recent amendment, in part by lobbying the National Organic Standards Board, which reports to the USDA, at a meeting this month and launching consumer education efforts about the issue.
The prospect of this debate dragging on worries Anker of Grandy Oats, though. He's concerned that industry infighting over minor ingredients will overshadow the big-picture, global benefits of the organic movement, such as lower use of pesticides and other toxic materials in food production. "We can strive to get everything already labeled organic to go to 100% nonsynthetics and remain a small slice of a huge pie, when what we should be doing is working on conventional food businesses ˆ get them to convert to the organic standards that are now in place," he says.
But Arthur Harvey says he's convinced consumers want their organic products to be 100% synthetic-free, which is why he's gearing up to carry on the fight started by his lawsuit. He's planning to launch a website in the coming weeks that will advocate for a grassroots, state-by-state strategy to lobby Congress and the USDA to reverse itself once again and abide by the stricter organic standards.
Rather than fading away, he hopes the topic becomes even more prevalent in organic consumers' minds. "Now is the time for the consumers and some of the farmers to reassert themselves," says Harvey. "I think there are lot more of us than there are of [large manufacturers], and this is going to be a pretty much mainstream topic among organic consumers."
A crucial piece of that suit and Congress' subsequent amendment pertains to the use of synthetic substances in organic food processing. Harvey's lawsuit sought to eliminate a list of 38 such products previously approved for use in organic foods; Congress acted to reinstate that list in the organic standards. But even the recent amendment is far from the end of the matter, say Harvey and others in the organic industry.
In fact, the move has re-ignited a debate within the organic industry about the nature of the "organic" label. The amendment also created a rift in the organic community by enacting rules that Harvey and others say benefit big food processors ˆ attracted, they say, to the $11 billion organic food industry but not entirely committed to its values ˆ over small farmers and producers. "The [organic] law was based on the assumption that organic foods are 100% organic, but the trend has been just the opposite, with the USDA expanding the list of nonorganic and synthetic materials allowed," says Harvey. "It's just a question of dollars and cents."
The Massachusetts-based Organic Trade Association, which lobbied Congress to reinstate the pre-Harvey standards and which has been accused of catering to big players in the organic food industry like General Mills, which owns the organic brand Cascadian Farms, calls those accusations nonsense. The OTA argues that Harvey's lawsuit would have hurt both large and small organic growers and farmers and slowed the growth of the entire industry. But within Maine's organic community ˆ which is made up predominantly by small growers and processors ˆ there's no consensus about how either the Harvey lawsuit or Congress' reversal of that ruling would impact local businesses.
Some small farmers and food processors like Harvey say allowing the use of synthetics can give large processors a cost advantage over companies that stick to using only natural ingredients. They add that those products don't even belong in products carrying the organic label. Other Maine companies agree with the OTA's stance, saying that Harvey's standards would make it more difficult or impossible to produce their goods. Still other Maine farmers and companies say the shifting fate of that list of 38 substances has no effect on the way they grow their food or process their products.
Even those growers and producers, though, share the biggest concern in the organic industry: that confusion and acrimony over the standards will spill over into consumer opinion, shaking consumer confidence in the value of the organic label. "Most of Maine's farmers didn't need this amendment. We're more of a fresh fruit and vegetable state," says Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. "But the label and loyalty those people have been building over decades are at risk."
The CO2 example
USDA approved the list of 38 synthetic substances for use in organic food processing in 2002, after several years of debate among the industry, consumers and the National Organic Standards Board. Most of those substances ˆ such as the leavening agent ammonium bicarbonate and the thickener low-methoxy pectin ˆ are used to turn organic raw materials like wheat and milk into packaged foods like crackers and yogurt.
Faced with the prospect of changing their processing practices after three years of adhering to the standards, many organic food companies turned to the OTA to help preserve those standards, says executive director Katherine DiMatteo. In Maine, even some companies that believed they were unaffected by the changes found themselves facing potential disruptions.
Aaron Anker, co-owner of Brownfield-based granola maker Grandy Oats, says he didn't pay much attention to the debate at first because his company's 100% organic products contain no synthetic ingredients. Then he learned that some of his suppliers stored their grain using carbon dioxide ˆ one of the 38 approved substances ˆ as an anti-spoiling and anti-pest agent. As a businessman, Anker knew that changing the organic standards threatened to increase grain spoilage, and could hurt his supply of ingredients. As a strong believer in the philosophy behind organic foods, he felt comfortable with that particular substance and application. "I have no problem with it," says Anker. "CO2 is naturally occurring in the air, and I don't think it's going to be toxic to my food or my environment."
Eliminating CO2 from the organic standards wouldn't hurt organic grain farmers like Matt Williams, however. The Linneus-based grower, who supplies wheat to companies such as Borealis Breads, says he doesn't need the substance. He simply cleans his storage silos regularly and uses a layer of ground seashells at the bottom to prevent insects from coming up through the earth. "Here in the Northeast, storage pests are not as prevalent as they are in other parts of the country," says Williams. "It's not a big issue for us."
Stories like Williams' echo Harvey's argument that food producers can ˆ and should ˆ find non-synthetic and organic alternatives to many of the synthetic substances previously approved by USDA. Harvey cites his own blueberry butter made with an organic form of pectin derived from the apple pulp left over from cider pressing. Although he acknowledges that the pulp is not widely available, he argues that forcing large organic yogurt and jam makers to drop synthetic pectin would spark huge demand for the product, creating a new revenue source for organic orchards.
That's not the way the OTA sees it, though. The group argues that there simply are no natural alternatives for some of the 38 approved synthetic substances, such as baking powder. And being unable to comply with a 100% organic standard would force many companies to give up their "USDA organic" label in exchange for the "Made with organic ingredients" label reserved for products that contain at least 70% organic ingredients.
Because manufacturers widely perceive that label to be less attractive to consumers, the OTA's DiMatteo says the Harvey lawsuit could have forced many companies to abandon the organic market altogether, unable to attract customers or charge the organic price premium to which they're accustomed. "No [OTA members] I spoke with are supportive of the 'made with' label," she says. "They could see from their consumer focus groups and research that people don't like that label and don't respond to it."
Those fears may be overblown, however, says Rockland-based organic wine merchant Paul Chartrand. He's finding equal success selling wines labeled "organic" and labeled "made with organic grapes" (see "In vino veritas," p. 21).
Reaching consumers
Some in the Maine organic industry fear that consumer perception of the entire USDA organic program may take a hit because of the debate. Russell Libby of MOFGA says he's particularly upset by the process through which Congress reinstated those organic standards. Having a conference committee attach a non-funding-related amendment to an appropriations bill smacks of Washington business-as-usual, says Libby, and creates the appearance of food industry lobbyists getting heard over the hundreds of thousands of consumers who he says called to support the changes in Harvey's lawsuit. "It seems to me that organic has been presented as higher standard, so the process [of establishing that standard] has to go through more scrutiny," says Libby.
Several national consumer groups share Libby's concerns, including Consumers Union, the New York-based nonprofit that publishes Consumer Reports, and the Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association. Those groups plan to continue fighting against the recent amendment, in part by lobbying the National Organic Standards Board, which reports to the USDA, at a meeting this month and launching consumer education efforts about the issue.
The prospect of this debate dragging on worries Anker of Grandy Oats, though. He's concerned that industry infighting over minor ingredients will overshadow the big-picture, global benefits of the organic movement, such as lower use of pesticides and other toxic materials in food production. "We can strive to get everything already labeled organic to go to 100% nonsynthetics and remain a small slice of a huge pie, when what we should be doing is working on conventional food businesses ˆ get them to convert to the organic standards that are now in place," he says.
But Arthur Harvey says he's convinced consumers want their organic products to be 100% synthetic-free, which is why he's gearing up to carry on the fight started by his lawsuit. He's planning to launch a website in the coming weeks that will advocate for a grassroots, state-by-state strategy to lobby Congress and the USDA to reverse itself once again and abide by the stricter organic standards.
Rather than fading away, he hopes the topic becomes even more prevalent in organic consumers' minds. "Now is the time for the consumers and some of the farmers to reassert themselves," says Harvey. "I think there are lot more of us than there are of [large manufacturers], and this is going to be a pretty much mainstream topic among organic consumers."
Most Recent
Most Recent
Comments