Fight! Fight! OCA vs Whole Foods!
Boy, nothing lights up the internet like a good organic food fight, huh? You could power every home in the Western Hemisphere from the energy organic partisans expend bickering, tweeting, blogging, and flaming each another.
But the latest skirmish isn’t merely a skirmish — it’s a civil war, and for a number of reasons, it probably marks a historic turning point for organics.
This battle began in the wake of last week’s USDA decision to fully deregulate Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa. In a full-throated battle cry, Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of the Organic Consumers Association, blasted what he dubs “a self-appointed cabal” of three “elite” organic companies — Organic Valley Co-op, Stonyfield Farms, and Whole Foods Market — for “surrendering to Monsanto” and its pro-biotech agenda.
According to Cummins, these companies abandoned the strategy of seeking a total federal ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa and “are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for ‘coexistence’ with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.”
Now I like a good Whole Foods bashing as much as the next food fighter in a wrestling mask, and Stonyfield isn’t high on my list either.
But just last week, all three of these three companies were pushing the USDA to regulate Monsanto’s alfalfa in their respective social media machines. What would Whole Foods or Stonyfield gain by cutting a secret deal with Monsanto now? Why would Organic Valley pull a 180-degree turn after six years of fighting GE alfalfa?
And if these companies didn’t cut a secret deal, why would the director the Organic Consumers Association stridently attack the organic industry like this?
To understand this “firing on Fort Sumter” moment, if you will, let’s hit rewind and go back to the beginning of last year.
The History of a Civil War
Last year, the organic and anti-GMO movements were handed a big set-back by the Supreme Court.
In that June decision, the Court blanked out an existing ban on GE alfalfa, which had been issued back in 2007, and ordered the USDA to conduct a study determining what Roundup Ready alfalfa’s impact on the environment would be. Furthermore, once the study was complete, the Court decreed that action was needed from the USDA to uphold or overturn the 2007 ban. Everyone in the organic world knew this study had to be conducted and has been waiting for the final decision for the last seven months.
That court-ordered study finally came out last month (December 2010), but it didn’t exactly support upholding the ban on GE alfalfa, at least, not from the USDA’s point of view. Bowing to massive pressure from ag lawmakers, the American Farm Bureau Federation (pdf), and Big Gene’s super-power as campaign funder, USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack told the organic world that the USDA would entertain only two options regarding GE alfalfa: (A) Coexistence between organic and biotech, or (B) full deregulation of GE alfalfa. Banning GE alfalfa was not option.
So, this wasn’t a sekret deal cut in the dead of night in order to surrender to Monsanto – “co-existence” was a gun put to the organic industry’s head. Obviously no one wanted either A or B. Whole Foods et al had no choice but to consider “coexistence” because the USDA already decided that GE alfalfa would be approved for sale. Indeed, Helen Bottemiller of Food Safety News cites anonymous sources who say it was the White House that pressured the USDA to fully deregulate GE alfalfa.
Again, banning alfalfa was not an option and may never have been an option.
Now if you were the CEO of a company that bought exclusively from certified organic farmers, what would you do, knowing that the deck was stacked against you like this? Would you ignore choices A and B and still go off the board for C (a total ban) even though the USDA just told you that choice wasn’t on the table? Plug your ears and sing “La La La this isn’t happening Tom Vilsack La La La?” Maybe if you were a non-profit, seeking to keep a campaign alive, option C would be the obvious choice. But it does nothing for organic farmers who want some regulation on GE alfalfa now.
As a result, it was a fork in the road for opponents of GE alfalfa and one-time allies.
Down one road: Organic Valley, Organic Trade Association, National Co-op Grocers Association, and many, many other companies and non-profits mounted a last ditch effort to sway the USDA toward choice A, that is, some manner of regulation for the mutant crop.
Down the other: Cummins chose (C) and continued the call for a total ban on biotech agriculture.
Vilsack, as we know, went another way (and perhaps had no choice in the matter, either). He went for (B) Total deregulation.
That’s when things got bloody.
The Social Media Ride of Paul Revere
Now, just as Cummins hoped, the reaction to his bombshell of an article (published far and wide, from Huffington Post to Common Dreams) was nothing short of incendiary, flashing across the web like a gas fire. It was a tall tale told to frighten the organic kids huddled around his campfire, who are primed to expect nefarious behavior from Big Organics (I know I am). As these things happen, bloggers and activists scooped up Cummins’ story without fact-checking so that in each re-telling, the tall tale got a little taller.
From Care2: 3 Major Organic Brands Surrender To Monsanto’s GE Alfalfa. (Check it out: On Care2 this week, they’re preaching “no coexistence!” between organic and biotech. But last week, they were pushing petitions written with the very language that Cummins now calls coexistence. Oops.)
But this one’s simply got to be read to be believed, from Forbes Corporate Responsibility blog: The OrganicGate Scandal, by blogger Scott James. From the post:
OCA is leading a public cry of outrage, suggesting collusion at the CEO level among Stonyfield, WFM [Whole Foods Market], and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, and the acceptance of “hush money.”
Oh boy! Were officials being bribed to keep quiet by Stonyfield and Whole Foods hush money? This Ronnie Cummins story just gets better and better the more it gets repeated!
Hush, Hush
When I confronted Forbes ‘ blogger about the “hush money” sentence, Scott James said he was referring to Ronnie Cummins’ accusation that Whole Foods wanted organic farmers to receive hush money from Monsanto.
Now. Hold up. Is that what Whole Foods was saying? Did Whole Foods want farmers to receive bribes? Let’s go back to what Cummins’ originally wrote in his “hush money paragraph.” First of all, there’s this:
In exchange for allowing Monsanto’s premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM [Whole Foods Market] wants “compensation.”
OK, stop right there. That reads as though Whole Foods Market wants compensation for itself, right? WFM wants compensation. Sadly, it’s not just sloppy diction, here. Cummins can’t afford to say what Whole Foods was really arguing for.
Why? Because what Whole Foods wanted actually makes sense. Whole Foods was advocating for organic farmers to receive compensation if their crops are polluted by GE alfalfa.
Think I’m being too kind to WFM? From Whole Foods’ blog:
“We were trying to secure protections for organic farmers so biotechnology companies for the first time would be held accountable if GE crops polluted non-GE crops and would be forced to pay for the damages.”
Oh, how horrible.
Not only does Cummins shamelessly twist words to the point of liable, he repeats this attack at the end of the same paragraph, and broadens it:
…WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay “compensation” (i.e. hush money) to farmers “for any losses related to the contamination of his crop.”
Why is compensation paid to organic farmers for GE pollution seen as “hush money” to Cummins? Probably because compensating farmers means admitting that coexistence between organic and biotech might be possible — or even necessary.
But let’s face up to the cold, cruel reality on “coexistence,” organic activists and bloggers. Organic ag has been coexisting with Monsanto and GE crops — for years — and to believe otherwise is lunatic, crazypants denial. To claim that organics will never coexist with biotech when GE corn is popping up in Mexico of all places; to show the unmitigated gall of telling organic farmers that they shouldn’t receive compensation for damages or expect organic consumers to endorse such a thing; to believe that fighting for a ban is better than giving farmers the regulations they need to exist in the real world alongside biotech ag — it’s the absolute, astonishing height of absurdity.
Coexistence is not the death of organics, and compensation is not “hush money.” Someone ask Percy Schmeiser what he thinks about the idea of organic farmers receiving compensation from Monsanto.
The Death of Organics
A sparring partner of mine on Twitter, Anastasia Bodnar (who wrote an excellent piece at Biofortified on the unlikelihood of GE alfalfa pollen contaminating certified organic alfalfa), asked me if I really thought that deregulating RR alfalfa spelled the end of organic farming.
We got into a good discussion, but what I couldn’t say in the span of such short tweets is that I don’t think organics can suffer too many more body blows to its credibility before it goes down. And I felt that if the USDA deregulated alfalfa, it was going to seriously damage the organic industry on some level.
It remains to be seen if this fray is permanently damaging. But watching this bloody family feud over the weekend between OCA and the most respected companies in the organic industry, I don’t think we’re seeing the end of organics so much as the massive, inherent rift between non-profits who’ve long championed the “organic movement” and the for-profit organic business world. And I don’t think it’s a rift we’ll recover from.
Well-organized non-profits like the Organic Consumers Association needs to keep massive write-in campaigns and widespread internet volunteerism alive if they’re going to keep their organization growing and driving forward. Indeed, the never-ending campaign is the product they sell, and they sell it well. I’m honestly not being cynical here. If it weren’t for Ronnie Cummins and the OCA’s mountain-moving organization, the USDA Organic Rule would have started off allowing GMOs in organic farming back in 1998. Back then, the activists saved the fledgling industry’s credibility, which is why I think Cummins was willing to fight this hard and this dirty to save it now (as he perceives it).
On the other, you’ve got the captains of industry who can only ever see the reality of the situation in front of them. Granted, organics has more idealism sewn into it than most industries, but when the USDA said a ban was off the table, well, most business leaders of any stripe won’t lead their companies into the breach of an unwinnable war.
Cummins would probably say that banning GE alfalfa is the best and only way to protect organic farmers from biotech pollution. I actually think that a total ban on GE alfalfa would have been a smaller win compared to garnering compensation for organic farmers. If Whole Foods et al had wooed out of Vilsack the “coexistence” protections they sought, perhaps organic corn farmers could then seek compensation for GE corn pollution. Ditto organic soybean farmers.
Sometimes the hard line is not the best line.
Pingback: On Getting Divided and Conquered – How Biotech Firms Are Winning The War via Social Media « Natural Food List – Organic Food News and Coupons
I don’t understand your position. Who are we fighting for here? The small farmers who have been contaminated by GMOs in the past — or the farmers who stand to get contaminated and the consumers who don’t want GMOs in the food chain at all? Who the hell wants to fight for compensation money??? That’s what you get when the damage has been done. Cummins was right in taking a hard line stance, and he’s brave for taking the heat that comes with it. You’re right that we have to unite, but we should unite in refusing to compromise with Monsanto.
My position is that regulating GE crops is smarter than not regulating GE crops.
Makes perfect sense!!
Well said, El Dragon.
Who we should NOT be fighting: companies that produce and market certified organic food, who tried a last ditch effort to get SOMETHING rather than NOTHING – which is exactly what we got – for organic farmers.
How does shouting “hell no, we won’t go” while frothing at the mouth help organic growers or consumers? It’s like holding our breath until we turn blue. We got nothing anyway. How would it have helped if OV/WF had thrown a tantrum? Please explain. (I’m holding my breath until you convince me.)
By attempting, under pressure, to negotiate with Big Gene (nice one, ED), Big Gene’s true colors have been shown. They would not budge an inch. They are perfectly happy to destroy organic farming.
OCA’s divisive behavior only strengthens Monsanto and their ilk.
Thank you for taking the time to speak of both sides of this story, both form the history perspective and the perspective of the groups who were embroiled in it all, from OCA to WF to Vilsack. Ronnie Cummins indeed twisted and stretched his words and the bloggers jumped hard to bash the for-profit OG players without researching the story. I watched the Forbes blog as Scott James had reader after reader, including Organic Valley, question his facts and take him to task for lack of research.
Deregulation is indeed the worst thing that could have happened here. Co-existence (when a ban was proven not possible) would have been far better than what we ended up with. Watching Food, Inc. again Saturday night, in the middle of all this, it was easy to see how many farmers fell prey to Monsanto’s cease and desists when their fields were infected and/or when they tried to plant non-Monsanto seeds. Compensation and protection hopefully would have aided them in this effort.
Our battle going forward does indeed need to be united. My kids, just teenagers now, face the real risk now of having very few if any OG choices available by the time their children our born. Our efforts need to be united to try and reverse GE approvals and carve out permanent niches for OG farming and products for the future. Internal bickering will not help. My questions and efforts are now directed to the White House and asking President and Ms. Obama when they plan to plant GE corn, soy, etc. in the White House garden and feed it to their children. Perhaps when it hits the President’s family at that level, they will understand the importance of the issue.
Thanks very much for the mention. I just wanted to make a quick comment before I rush off to do more stuff for work. So much to comment on but there’s one main point I’d really like to make.
You said “Organic ag has been coexisting with Monsanto and GE crops — for years — and to believe otherwise is lunatic, crazypants denial.”
I disagree. There may be coexisting as in nearby but there hasn’t been any coexisting as in actively working to make sure all farmers are able to practice the methods and grow the crops they choose.
Even if we just look at different types of farming without GE, there can be problems when nearby farmers want to grow different things. They can either try to ignore the situation, wait until there’s a problem and then sue each other, or they can actively work to ensure true coexistence.
Let me give you real world two examples:
Seedless mandarin orange farmers in California didn’t bother making a coexistence plan with their neighbors that farm other citrus and keep bees to pollinate them. The bees brought pollen from the other citrus to the mandarin orange trees, resulting in seeds. The now seeded mandarin oranges fetch a much lower price than the seedless version. Lawsuits ensued. The eventual “coexistence” plan was to allow the seedless mandarin farmers to boot beekeepers out of the area if they wanted (see law). Is this a good or bad decision? Don’t the bee keepers have a right to conduct their business? I put coexistence in quotes because it’s not really coexisting if one group is being denied the right to farm we they wish. Coincidentally, this law is very similar to the alfalfa “coexistence” plan proposed by Vilsack that didn’t get approved (explanation here), but anyway, that’s not the point.
The second example is from Raoul Adamchak, co-author of Tomorrow’s Table, as described here by co-author and spouse Pamela Ronald – “On his organic farm, they were growing beautiful sunflowers to sell for bouquets at the farmers market. Unfortunately, the pollen from the organic crop was contaminating fields of conventional sunflowers that were being grown for seed. The pollen flow from the organic crop rendered the seed crop impure and therefor reduced the value of the seed crop. This is America so you would expect that the conventional farmer would sue the organic farmer. But no! The farmers talked to each other and came up with a solution. The conventional growers gave the organic grower some sterile sunflower seeds. Problem solved. The organic growers here in the Valley now grow sterile sunflowers for their bouquets.”
The second example is real coexistence. Instead of forcing out their neighbors, both sides looked at the situation and found something that would work. Now, obviously sterility isn’t going to work everywhere, that’s not the point, the point is that there are often solutions that will allow nearby farmers to work together so that they can grow what they want / need to grow. I discussed some alfalfa specific solutions in the post you referred to. Nearby farmers need to talk to each other about what they plan to plant and take reasonable steps to mitigate damage to the other’s farm and to their own farm. One would hope farmers would want to work together simply because it is the right thing to do, but if that’s not enough, planning ahead can help prevent lawsuits in the case of trespass of pollen. The case law of who pays when trespass happens is clear – it depends on whether each party took reasonable steps to mitigate risk (described in full here). This is what actual coexistence refers to – working together to mitigate risks.
How to move forward from here? Organic groups can help provide realistic, science-based information to farmers about coexistence, helping to keep farmers producing and selling what they want and keeping them out of lawsuits. This seems like a no-brainer to me. Organic groups can keep campaigning against GMOs or whatever, but if they really care about farmers, they’ll spend some time and funds on actually helping farmers. It’s not just up to organic groups and organic farmers, though. USDA and various conventional farming groups, biotech groups, everyone needs to also help provide realistic, science-based information to farmers about coexistence.
Ok, that took a bit longer than I had hoped. But I very much feel that this idea of actual coexistence is what we all need to be focusing on, not infighting, not pitting farmer against farmer.
Well this is interesting. I appreciate the break-down of the facts.
Except that I am sure you meant “libel” not “liable.”
Also, the thrust of the OCA campaign is to pressure WFM to adopt a truth-in-labeling policy. Nothing wrong with that. And the “full-throated battle cry” came after the USDA announcement, so its not as if Cummins’ hard line stance really caused the loss of compensation or oversight. That was already a done deal.
Regulation is not sufficient — preventing contamination of the gene pool is where we need to take our stand. Not to mention the reality we all know — the regulations will be broken, and Monsanto will use all its power in court to hamstring small farmers who sue.
If regulation is insufficient, then complete DEregulation is rolling over entirely. And deregulation is what the organic industry was faced with.
The threat of levying damages against polluters would work excellently in ag, especially if the individual farmer was held accountable. It would either force conventional farmers to protect their neighbors on a field by field level, or it would choke off the market for GE crops entirely.
But biotech is far more afraid of regulation than outright bans and will fight to the death to keep it from happening. The fantasy narrative that organic activists and farmers have of banning GE crops doesn’t frighten them one bit. It’ll never happen. See how fast biotech brought the Obama White House to heel on this one, as soon Vilsack started talking “co-existence”?
They despise the notion every bit as much as you do.
Eliza — Why say \holding your breath and throwing a tantrum\? Is that what a unified, powerful, uncompromising movements against Monsanto looks like? You might not mean to, but by using that language you are actually denigrating the entire history and future potential of strong grassroots opposition — the kind we need if we’re going to win. OCA, Whole Foods, Stonyfield, Organic Valley, and a host of other NGOs and citizens groups should reunite in a new and stronger alliance against GMOs and show Europe we are not the pathetic corporate slave society we appear to be. That’s what needs to happen now.
A unified powerful movement does not turn on its own when the going gets tough. Sorry.
OCA is aiming low by going after OV and WFM. Maybe they can stir up more donations by going after Whole Foods and OV, you think?
What are they going to win, regarding genetic engineering, by attacking OV and WFM? How does that help anyone except OCA? The USDA, the Republican Congress, the White House and Monsanto et al are at fault here. And OCA publicly attacks Organic Valley?
No one was/is “endorsing” coexistence. They were trying to get something rather than nothing when the USDA told them how limited their options were. They tried for something.
I have little patience for purists who prefer lose everything while leaving their sense of righteousness intact, when they could have saved something with a little compromise.
After decades of farmers and organic retailers working to assure consumers that organic does mean something, OCA goes off half-cocked to again undermine public confidence in this fledgling movement. Monsanto must be laughing their a**es off right now.
How about ending ALL farm subsidies? Let the consumer decide who sinks or swims.
It’s ironic that the worst enemy of certified organic food are so-called organic advocates. They have sown so much misunderstanding and distrust of organic foods, I wonder who really is behind them. They do a much more effective job than Monsanto does in confusing consumers about the meaning of the organic standards. The organic standards are not perfect but they are quite rigorous and undeniably result in reduction of millions of pounds of synthetic herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotics. Leave it to the “progressives” to attack their own more strongly than they attack their true opponents.
Sorry, El Dragon — your argument falls apart on a couple of key points:
1. People ALWAYS have choices, no matter what the “political reality” — “political realities” are concocted to corner the willing into bad choices. So don’t say that WFM, the USDA or anyone else “had no choice.”
2. The record of cross-contamination speaks for itself. In terms of practicability, it is impossible to prevent cross-contamination (even if you want to grow the GMO products in ‘clean rooms’ with multiple cleaning stations between the plants and the outside world). Contamination will happen.
3. There is NO adequate compensation for GMO contamination — the people of the world cannot be adequately compensated, and neither can the farmers who want to grow non-GMO products — because there is no way to remove the GMO contamination once it has gotten out.
So OCA is right. And you are selling us out just like WFM, et al.
GMO farming should not be regulated. It should be banned.
There is no such thing as adequate regulation, even if there were a genuine attempt to implement it.
Correcto, you think that GE crops should be approved without regulation. Sorry, but that’s absurd.
I hear you — you think GE crops should be banned, and I agree. But when they ARE approved, like alfalfa just was, discussing regulation is pointless to you, right? GE crops should be approved unregulated because contamination is inevitable, and polluted organic farms like Percy Schmeiser’s are just SOL, because it’s a waste to try and protect them. Right?
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
Organic farmers living in a biotech world shouldn’t be awarded damages by law, says you, so when their farms become polluted, they should take Monsanto to court and hope for the best.
Amazing. I bet that’s almost the same argument Monsanto made against regs on GE crops.
As an Organic Valley farmer, I was shocked by OCA statments. Since when is spending thousands of farmers’ dollars, sending hundreds of emails/letters and giving up time that we could be farming to fight this issue “giving in to Monsanto” Haha. As a farmer, right now our best option to push both for protection and elimination. That is exactly what OV farmers have been doing since the start. How messed up are we when a GMO is deregulated and organic companies get blamed??? Thanks again for a great post.
Yeah, the crazy. Things are easier to understand if they’re put in stark black-and-white, I guess.
Thank you for your great post on alfalfa, Emily. I hope readers interested in an organic dairy farmer’s take on alfalfa will read this:
http://zweberfarms.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/gmo-alfalfa-deregulated-by-usda-and-what-it-means-to-our-farm/
Your position that regulating GE crops is smarter than not regulating GE crops, not withstanding…WFM relationship with GE cheerleader Tom Vilsack is well documented. Btw, how do you regulate seeds that mutate and cross contaminate? Just another GMO shill, trying to spin the Whole Food Market sellout to plant doubt in the minds of sheeple! FYI, another fact that Mr. Cummings hit on the head, is that approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as “natural.” Anyone who can read a label knows this.
So your position is that once GE crops are approved by the USDA, organic farmers are on their own. You won’t fight for them, because there’s no point.
What hasn’t been mentioned here is that alfalfa is NOT a crop bothered by weeds. A farmer might gain a little bit the first year, but in subsequent years, perennial alfalfa takes over and all you have is alfalfa. So why the push from Monstanto for GE alfalfa? What brainy Monster Man came up with this idea? Farmers have never in the past had to spray alfalfa with weed killers. This whole thing is a farce perpetrated by Monsanto’s behemoth greed. They have too much invested now to let it go. I expect they will recoup their expenses.
Excellent point, Yvonne. Whenever I ask conventional farmers what benefits they’d receive from RR alfalfa, the conversation gets very vague or stops altogether.
The benefit lies with those farmers that grow for export markets and even domestic dairies. Alfalfa is priced by purity. You are right that after the first year, it doesn’t really matter, but without RR a conventional farmer will get one maybe two cuttings in the first year of planting (vs up to six on later years). Those first year cuttings are usually really poor in quality and purity. To a farmer whos main business is alfalfa, RR will really give them an advantage. I am not defending GMO alfalfa, in fact I a very against it, I am just telling you what farmers are saying.
No, I appreciate you walking me through it, Emily. Like I said, I’ve asked several farmers but haven’t received a nice clear answer like that.
I have to tell you that I’ve read what seems like hundreds of articles since Ronnie Cummins wrote his article last Friday. This article/blog is by FAR my favorite. You fairly and equally spank everyone that needs a spanking.
Thank you for having some common sense in a war that is completely senseless. You rock!
I just want to add one more piece to this puzzle.
In the NE US the National Refuges just banned GMO crops as a prairie restoration management tool. However, in the Midwest Region it is up for grabs right now. Comments are open until Feb 14 on a Draft Environmental Assessment, the short version of a study. Here is the link: http://s.coop/atn
Excellent job Barth.
I, too, would like to see all GMO’s banned.
But I would also like it if those accusing OV, WF and Stonyfield of misdeeds what _specifically_ they were to do differently than they did.
As you laid out, holding out for a ban on RR alfalfa was not an option at the end.
Were they to walk away from the table with nothing? How does that help hold back the GMO tide?
Yeah, it’s totally bizarre, Rodney. Jill Richardson has a post at La Vida Locavore today talking about why she supports Cummins and OCA in their attacks on OV, WF, Stonyfield. She says she doesn’t want to fight in order to end up giving the industry exactly what it wants (approval of GE crops). But the notion that Monsanto wants regulation, that it wants the USDA to define biotech as contamination and pollution and pay financial damages to organic farmers, is shockingly off the mark.
It boggles the mind, actually. Organic Valley was supposed to retreat and leave their organic farmers without any legal or financial recourse? Can you imagine how OV farmers would have reacted to *that*?
This is bad, the worst possible thing to happen. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT CAN COME FROM THIS IS, The education of the public as to the proven dangers of nonfoods and modified foods sold in America. All artif. colors have a bad rep and this should be common knowledge to the America public. My son is poisoned by all the dyes in on organic foods. We found out the hard way. He was three/four when we put it together what was causing his behavior problems. My wife works at a pre k to 8th grade private school and has told several parents about what we found out about our son and the artif dyes in processed foods. People do not know just how bad our food chain is. If the people really understood what’s going on there would be riots outside the FDA and USDA complete with torches and firewood and stakes in the ground. Without a massive grassroots campaign to get the truth out about the true harm done by this fake food for profit a campaign using every means possible to inform the public we cannot win any war with Monsanto and all the other producers that profit from poisoning our food. We can fight each other or fight and uninformed public. Only by telling the truth the whole truth on shades of gray or fear spreading but the truth will we begin to win the war one dinner table at a time. Ignorance and misinformation always lose to big money. Education and truth is only way to beat big money. Even in Washington D.C. Let people’s stories of how their lives have been changed by the food choices they have made. Work harder at getting the word out. We are not our worst enemy, misinformation is. This fight proves that.
I’ve been reading about this for the last several days, and this is a excellent and very readable summation and analysis. I’ll be following your blog from now on. Thanks!
And about the topic– I just don’t understand what the OCA would rather the others, like Organic Valley, do. When you know that a complete ban is off the table (and really, everyone must have known that from the start, given the history of GE crops in the US), why not participate in a dialogue? it’s not like the organic companies and advocates have anything to lose…
and thanks for pointing out the absurdity of calling compensation for crop contamination “hush money”–how absurd. I value the work of OCA but over the top campaigns like this really make me scratch my head.
Glad you found the article helpful, Sarah. Throw Fair Food Fight in your blog-reader, if you use one, and that way, you won’t miss a post.
I’m afraid I’m still scratching my head too. I really don’t agree with with distorting language and truth, as OCA did, particularly to hurt companies who might be their allies in the very next fight.
It’s interesting. I’ve been asking OCA die-hards how they feel about regulating GE crops. The answer is invariably, “Hell, no!” Then I say, “Well what about securing damages for organic farmers on a legal level?” And they say, “Oh, well, of course, I agree with that.” And I say, but that’s what OV, WFM, and Stonyfield were trying to do! That’s what OCA was calling “hush money”!
It’s a moot point, of course. GE alfalfa has been approved without a single regulation of any kind.
And now even GE sugar beets have been green-lighted.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/02/04/gmo-sugar-beets-usda/
Pingback: The ABCs of GMOs: Alfalfa, bureaucrats and a conversation with a kid | Spoonfed
Pingback: The USDA unleashes GE alfalfa and sugar beets: What’s ahead for the Organic Community? | mikenowak.net
There’s one big, fat, sloppy, disgusting LIE that Barth Anderson is telling here: he claims that Organic Consumers Association is calling for a “total ban” of GE alfalfa and all biotech agriculture. That’s a lie. There is NO CALL for a BAN! You can read Ronnie Cummins’ article (The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?) here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm
Anderson then sets up a false choice. Which is more sensible, some quixotic, “unwinnable” struggle for a total ban, or “giving farmers the regulations they need to exist in the real world” (i.e. “coexistence” with biotech agriculture)? Anderson’s answer: fighting for a ban is “the absolute, astonishing height of absurdity.”
So why would OCA insist on an absurd, unwinnable struggle? And why would OCA have “the unmitigated gall of telling organic farmers that they shouldn’t receive compensation for damages?” (That’s another Anderson lie.) Anderson tells us OCA is doing it out of selfishness: “the never-ending campaign is the product they sell.”
Well, that’s one load of horsehit piled upon another. Here’s what OCA really called for. Under the heading “The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called “Natural” GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market,” Cummins lays out his eminently sensible plan to use “consumer power” to pressure grocery retailers to voluntarily implement “truth-in-labeling” practices, while simultaneously mounting a campaign to pass mandatory GMO and CAFO labeling laws.
Consumers are asked to sign a petition stating: Your store should clearly identify all food products containing non-organic soy, corn, cottonseed oil, canola, sugar beets or GM growth hormones with a label or shelf sign that says “May Contain GMOs” and identify all beef, pork, poultry, dairy, and eggs that come from CAFOs with a label or shelf sign that says “CAFO.”
Such consumer-driven campaigns have worked in the past, and in this case polls show a stunning 85% to 95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. If GMO and CAFO-tainted foods were labeled, far fewer consumers would buy them, GMO products and brands would fail, and with no market for GMO food, farmers would not plant GMO crops.
The success of such a plan is not speculative. It’s actually working in the European Union right now. Cummins points out that there is no ban of biotech agriculture in Europe, but there is a GMO label law. European “farmers, food processors, and retailers have a legal right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled.” The result: “there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves.”
Why does Barth Anderson omit any mention of OCA’s Truth-in-Labeling campaign (which is the central thesis of the article he criticizes) and instead invent this fictional choice between “ban” and “coexistence?” Perhaps it’s because he makes a living in the natural foods grocery industry, where health-conscious consumers are being deceived into paying premium prices for so-called “natural” foods that are really GMO and CAFO. Gee, I hope I’m not being too “cynical.”
Geez, I’ve told you not to post comments here, Mom…
Look, I love your fighting spirit, naturally — er, Naturally — but I don’t work in the natural foods grocery industry anymore and haven’t for some time. So, your psychodrama about me is way off.
My first loyalty is to organic and sustainable farmers who are sitting ducks before the biotech steamroller. That’s who I fight for.
And Ronnie Cummins fights for farmers, too. Usually. So when he takes issue with legislation that would insure organic farmers receiving compensation or financial damages, which he calls “hush money,” supporters like me ARE going call him on it. You say I’m lying about his position? Here’s Cummins on compensation from his January piece:
“WFM [Whole Foods Market] wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay “compensation” (i.e. hush money) to farmers ‘for any losses related to the contamination of his crop.’”
In HuffPo, December 2010, Cummins said:
“Organic farmers and companies willing to cooperate will get a little compensation or “hush money.” But of course our response to Monsanto and the USDA’s plan, as you might have guessed, is hell no!”
Hell no to financial damages for organic farmers polluted by GMOs? Why?
I guess because Cummins and OCA’s strategy has been its Truth-in-Labeling campaign, as you say, and they want that pushed to the fore. Personally, I do think it’s as good a strategy as controlled deregulation or “coexistence.” One strategy asks for the USDA to regulate GMOs, the other asks the FDA.
The truly “false choice” is the one that Cummins created, asking us to choose between these two strategies, and cheap-shotting OV, Stonyfield, and WFM in the process. Why as an activist foot soldier in the No-GMO army do I have to choose between either partial deregulation of GMOs or Truth-in-Labeling? Why can’t we fight for both? In light of the USDA’s declaration that an outright “ban” was off the table, these strategies were certainly NOT mutually exclusive.
The fact is, biotech doesn’t want either partial regulation OR Truth in Labeling. Both strategies are frightening and abhorrent because they both smack the biotech industry with the hard truth that US customers want GMO foods labeled and that the USDA’s hottest sector, organics, lives in constant, real danger of GMO pollution.
As for banning GMOs, don’t be ridiculous, of course, Cummins fights for banning GMOs altogether, just as we all do in the organic and anti-GMO movements. In last year’s ramp up to the Supreme Court overturning the “ban” on GE alfalfa, the action alert that Cummins pushed was headlined: “Say no to GMOs” and asked supporters to write-in supporting the court-ordered block on GE alfalfa.
Blocking GMOs is always the best, first strategy, before ever discussing labeling or regulation. Why cede the ground, right? Monsanto’s GE wheat is going to be up for USDA approval, very soon. Should we fight about how to fight it? Or just fight it?
You’ve been caught in a lie and there’s nothing you can do to change it. You said that OCA insists on a total ban of biotech ag, and that’s a complete lie. You omitted any mention OCA’s true strategy, it’s Truth-in-Labeling campaign, and that’s another lie: a lie of omission.
You set up a false choice between this mythical “ban” campaign and your choice of “coexistence.” Then, you lied again, by painting OCA as foolish and selfish on the basis of your first lie (the mythical ban campaign), a characterization that is the opposite of the truth.
First and foremost, if you have any integrity as a human being you should APOLOGIZE for each and every one of those lies.
Instead, you offer yet another lie. Now you claim it was OCA who set up a false choice, a choice between “partial deregulation of GMOs” and Truth-in-Labeling. In fact, there is no such choice.
OCA’s Truth-in-Labeling campaign is completely independent of coexistence, either the defacto coexistence we have now, or the proposed USDA “coexistence” option (which USDA has since nixed). It leverages “consumer power” to pressure grocery retailers to voluntarily implement truth-in-labeling practices, while simultaneously mounting a campaign to pass mandatory “local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances – similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens,” and, should those actions fail, “to gather sufficient petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012.”
Furthermore, the OCA article invites “our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies” to join in the Truth-in-Labeling effort. OCA also makes clear it’s continued support for legal actions taken against biotech by Center for Food Safety and others, and for Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s federal legislation which would mandate GMO food labeling, GMO safety testing, and COMPENSATION paid by biotech companies to non-GMO farmers who are harmed by GMOs.
Clearly, OCA supports each of these avenues in the struggle against GMO contamination and poisoning. But, as OCA most sensibly observes, “With big money controlling Congress and the media [and, I would add, Obama], we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We’ve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.”
Since there is no either/or choice between Truth-in-Labeling and other efforts, why don’t Organic Valley and others support GMO food labeling? Many of us have been asking Organic Valley for that support, and so far we have been met with dead silence. In the two weeks since the OCA article was published, Organic Valley has issued three separate responses to it, and not one mentions GMO labeling. Neither does the National Cooperative Grocers Association offer support for GMO labeling. And, of course, neither do wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) and Whole Foods Market (WFM).
The OCA article observes that “WFM and most of the largest organic companies have DELIBERATELY SEPARATED THEMSELVES FROM anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to CAMPAIGNS WORKING TO LABEL or ban GMOs.” As of today, I have to agree with OCA that organic producers fear increased public awareness might undercut consumer confidence in the organic brand, by “reminding consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto’s GMOs.” As to grocery retailers, OCA says “they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? 2/3 of WFM’s $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called “natural” processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs.”
If OCA’s analysis is correct, then organic producers and retailers are putting their own short-term revenues ahead of public health and the environment, and they are truly the foolish and selfish ones.
Rather than relying on your malicious misrepresentation of the facts and continuing attempts to demonize OCA, people should read for themselves the OCA articles “The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?,” and “Monsanto Nation: Exposing Monsanto’s Minions,” here http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm and here http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22499.cfm
Join with us to achieve Truth-in-Labeling!
“Mythical campaign”? You’re the liar, N., because you know too much not to know better.
Here’s Cummins on HuffPo in January 2010 saying exactly what I claimed in my comment above.
Headline:
OBAMA USDA POISED TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT TO GMO-FREE FOOD
Here’s the wind up:
“The court BANNED [my emph] the planting of GM alfalfa until USDA completed a rigorous analysis of these impacts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national BAN [my emph] on Roundup Ready alfalfa planting, but Monsanto is appealing. They’re taking organic alfalfa farmers all the way to the Supreme Court!”
He’s not quoting anyone. BAN is Cummins’ terminology. Now here’s the pitch:
“We must stop the Obama administration from taking away our right to grow and consume organic and GMO-free food. The “change we believe in” is a healthy and sustainable future based upon organic food and farming and a green economy.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/obama-usda-poised-to-take_b_432185.html
In this article, Cummins is pushing to keep the court ordered ban on GE alfalfa in place. He links to an action alert, in which the demand for labeling appears very deep in the text — below the header of “No New GMOs”. Sounds like “ban” talk to me.
Truth in Labeling is not his primary concern at this point, and that makes sense. It’s not the pitch he wants to make to HuffPo’s gigantic audience. Keeping the ban on GE alfalfa is the campaign he’s inciting activists to support.
Furthermore, Truth in Labeling is obviously not the only strategy that OCA sees fit to rally around. Cummins clearly supports bans on GMOs and labeling them too — as he should.
Now smell my hand…see? Ally! Friend! So bag the idiotic “liar” talk the next time you post.
You must think your readers are really stupid. The word “ban” in the article you reference is the federal court’s word. OCA is simply reporting what the federal courts did, and OCA is not organizing or calling for a ban.
I tire of your malicious misrepresentations. Why don’t you cut the crap and tell us straight out: do you support GMO food labeling, YES of NO?
Yeah, you’re tired all right.
Unlike you, my readers already know what I said, so you’re not making a new point. I said that Truth in Labeling is a good strategy. I do support it.
And, by the way, you won’t “tire” of me. Not yet. You’ll be back in a couple minutes to try and wipe more egg off your face. You foot-stampers are all the same.
El,
That was great thanks a lot. Easy and fun to read too.
They say they are going to eat your kids and strangle your wife. But they relent and agree to not kill your wife and only take 3 of your kids into servitude. Probably a good deal if they just ate your neighbor’s kids and strangled his wife. But you know they’ll get hungry again.
A word search of “Cummins vs. Whole Foods: Organic Smacktalk” reveals no mention of “Truth-in-Labeling” or “labeling” or “label.” Two readers mentioned it in response to the article. Then I mentioned it ten more times before Barth Anderson finally said he thinks it’s “as good a strategy as controlled deregulation or ‘coexistence.’ One strategy asks for the USDA to regulate GMOs, the other asks the FDA.”
Of course, Truth-In-Labeling — voluntary GMO food labeling by grocery stores, and mandatory GMO label laws implemented by city, county and state governments — has nothing to do with FDA.
Even if Dennis Kucinich’s mandatory GMO-labeling legislation passes, the FDA will still not be “regulating” GMOs. Instead, informed consumers will avoid GMO foods, thus destroying the market for GMO crops.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/01/support-rep-kucinichs-efforts-to-better.html
Both USDA and FDA are in bed with Monsanto and biotech, so relying on either of them to “regulate GMOs” would be foolish. Not to mention the fact that once GMO crops are planted, contamination is assured with or without regulations.
Updates on Organic Consumers Association’s robust, consumer-power, Truth-in-Labeling campaign are here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob263.htm
God, I wish you were tiring of me, but I’m beginning to think you’re a piece of software that OCA dreamed up to release on my site. Because you’re not even reading what you’re posting anymore.
You said, “Even if Dennis Kucinich’s mandatory GMO-labeling legislation passes, the FDA will still not be “regulating” GMOs.”
But, in the link you posted, we see this headline:
Support Rep. Kucinich’s efforts to better regulate GMOs
Hmm. I wonder who will regulate these GMOs, then. Probably consumers exactly as you say, right? I got an idea. Let’s you and I actually read the words on the other side of that link, Naturally, and see what it says.
“The bill forces the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to screen each GMO individually and examine any and all health concerns associated with them, as well as places a moratorium on all pharmaceutical and industrial crop until all regulatory guidelines are met.”
Oops! Well, ok, maybe you just meant the FDA wouldn’t regulate the actual growing of GMOs, since “contamination is assured with or without regulations” as you said. Yet your link says that the Kucinich bills “offer both transparency in food labeling and reasonable safety guidelines concerning the cultivation of GMOs.”
In short, I’m not arguing with a “foot-stamper” as I thought. I’m arguing with an illiterate troll. Seacrest out.
Barth Anderson posts the description of a different Kucinich bill, and claims it is the description of the “mandatory GMO-labeling legislation” which I mentioned.
Here’s the real description of the Kucinich mandatory GMO-labeling bill:
“The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, or H.R. 6636, simply requires any food item containing GMOs to be labeled as such. Consumers have a right to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially as it concerns harmful substances like GMOs. And the bill does just that, as it establishes an open and transparent food labeling system.”
As I said correctly, if Kucincih’s mandatory GMO-labeling bill passes “informed consumers will avoid GMO foods, thus destroying the market for GMO crops.”
And, that’s the real key. When there is no market for GMO crops, there is no incentive to plant them. With no GMO crops in the ground, government regulation (either USDA of FDA) becomes moot. This “market power” solution is working successfully in Europe. And this is why OCA is campaigning for Truth-in-Labeling — voluntary GMO food labeling by grocery stores, and mandatory GMO label laws implemented by city, county and state governments — independent of, and in addition to, the Kucinich legislation.
But, Congressman Kucinich (God bless him) covers all his bases by introducing two other GMO bills as well. One, the Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act, or H.R. 6635, forces FDA to safety test GMOs BEFORE any crop can be planted. (This may be the weakest of the three bills since, as I’ve said, both USDA and FDA are in bed with Monsanto.) Kucinich’s third bill, the Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act, or H.R. 6637, adds yet another layer of protection by making biotech companies legally responsible for any harm caused by GMOs.
As always, visitors to this site should read the linked information for themselves.
Again, you said:
“Both USDA and FDA are in bed with Monsanto and biotech, so relying on either of them to “regulate GMOs” would be foolish.”
But you linked to 3 bills that would empower the FDA to do just that. These bills would grant the FDA wide regulatory power over GMO ingredients, from how they are grown, to how they are tested for safety and how they are labeled.
Any food fighters who are still following this ridiculous argument can decide for themselves if Kucinich is empowering the FDA to regulate GMOs and GMO labeling or not:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/01/support-rep-kucinichs-efforts-to-better.html
I honestly appreciate your knowledge of this legislation, Naturally, but, damn, man, think about the words you use and choose them more carefully. You’re preventing yourself from speaking clearly, to the point that you’re saying the opposite of what you mean.
Pingback: NCGA Disappointed in USDA’s Decision to Deregulate GE Alfalfa | StrongerTogether.coop
I nominate the posts from Naturally be translated into an ALLCAPS font. That brand of florid craziness deserves better.
El Dragon, you are badass and I like your style. Thanks to you and Fair Food Fight for standing up for what’s right!
Gracias, Hayduke! Thanks for reading. Funny that this issue (and this year-old blog post!) are suddenly getting action again.