The POP Campaign

A simple letter to get out to your House of Representatives member – let’s educate them to the need for the freedom of choice.

Date:  ___________________

Representative _________________

US House of Representatives

Washington, DC

Dear Representative:

As my voice in Washington, I request that you co-sponsor HR 3553, the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. I, like a majority of Americans agree, with the findings of this bill that “genetically engineering foods results in the material change of such foods” and therefore according to a currently unenforced law, this material fact should be clearly provided on food labels.  Voluntary labeling has proven ineffective, therefore; mandatory labeling is urgently needed.

I want to know about when food contains or is produced with a genetically engineered material. The government has done a dismal job of protecting the public by allowing so many genetically engineered products into the food supply.  A mandatory label will at least give consumers accurate information so we can make our own choices in the marketplace.

Many Americans need to know of the potential transfer of allergens into food and other health risks.  I am concerned about potential environmental risks associated with the genetic engineering of crops; and many Americans have religiously and ethically based dietary restrictions which require labeling of genetically engineered foods.  Worldwide consumers and farmers are concerned about the entrance of plant and animal species that have been genetically engineered.  HR 3553 is a good first step on the right course of protecting heritage species and consumer choice.

The POP CAMPAIGN is most concerned about GE / GMO labeling – our ally in Washington has given us this heads up – act now – see the letter posted above.

American Consumers like our global neighbors have been vocal about our desire to have accurate labeling foods regarding the inclusion of genetically engineered ingredients.  A major advance took place in the international regulatory body, the Codex Alimentarius in 2011 when the delegation from the United States removed its decade long objection to a confirmation that individual nations may establish regulations regarding genetically engineered foods.

Members of the United States Congress have introduced legislation in response to growing concerns from consumers and the agricultural community that genetically engineered (sometimes referred to as ‘bioengineered’ or ‘genetically modified’ or “GMO”) seeds and foods are entering the marketplace without adequate protections to the organic/heritage seeds and without truthful labeling. Alaska legislators stood in defense of wild raised salmon last winter with bills and legislative maneuvers to keep the Federal Government (USDA/FDA) from approval genetically engineered salmon.  Congressman Kucinich has reintroduced 3 bills this term. These three bills address three aspects of genetic engineering including labeling, cultivation, and litigation.

From my meetings on the Hill with staff in Tea Party and conservative Republicans, the labeling bill (HR 355) is the one which will most easily gain bi-partisan support.

A Call to Action (1 page fax, email alert, phone calls) will be needed to generate support on these issues. A draft 1 page fax is in the works.

The Below Summary is provided by Representative Kucinich’s Office

Rep. Kucinich Genetically Engineered Food Legislation: A 3-Piece Framework:

I. The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act:

What the bill does:

• Requires food companies to label all foods that contain or are produced with genetically engineered (GE) material and requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to periodically test products to ensure compliance;
• Authorizes voluntary, non-GE food labels, exempting food served in restaurants;
• Establishes a legal framework is to ensure the accuracy of labeling without creating significant economic hardship on the food production system.

II. The Genetically Engineered Safety Act:

What the bill does:

• Requires the FDA to screen all GE foods through the current food additive process to ensure safety for human consumption. Continues FDA discretion in applying the safety factors that are generally recognized as appropriate;
• Places a temporary moratorium on pharmaceutical crops and industrial crops until all regulations required by the bill are in effect;
• Requires that unique concerns regarding GE foods be explicitly examined in the review process; provides for a phase out of antibiotic resistance markers; implements a prohibition on known allergens; and requires the FDA to conduct a public comment period of at least 30 days;
• Places a permanent moratorium on pharmaceutical crops and industrial crops grown in an open-air environment and on pharmaceutical crops and industrial crops grown in a commonly used food source;
• Requires the United States Department of Agriculture to establish a tracking system to regulate the growing, handling, transportation, and disposal of all pharmaceutical and industrial crops and their byproducts to prevent contamination;
• Calls on the National Academy of Sciences to submit to Congress a report that explores alternative methods to produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals that have the advantage of being conducted in controlled production facilities and do not present the risk of contamination.

III. The Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act:

What the bill does:

• Farmers may save seeds and seek compensation for failed genetically engineered crops;
• Biotech companies may not: shift liability to farmers; nor require access to farmer’s property; nor mandate arbitration; nor mandate court of jurisdiction; nor require damages beyond actual fees; nor charge more to American farmers for use of this technology, than they charge farmers in other nations, or any other unfair condition;
• Seed companies must: ensure seeds labeled non-GE are accurate; provide clear instructions to reduce cross-pollination, which contaminates other fields; and inform farmers of the risks of using genetically engineered crops;
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to evaluate the concern of Bt resistant pests and take actions necessary to prevent resistance to Bt, an important organic pesticide;
• Prohibits genetic engineering designed to produce sterile seeds;
• Loan discrimination based on the choice of seeds an agricultural producer uses is prohibited;
• Place all liability from negative impacts of genetically engineered organisms squarely upon the biotechnology companies that created the genetically engineered organism;
• Farmers are granted indemnification to protect them from the liabilities of biotech companies;
• Prohibits any transfer of liability away from the biotechnology companies that created the genetically

Advocating Farmers Markets

Part of the growing trend to consumer organic foods is seen in farmers’ markets.  A recent article in the Greenville News stated, “Farmers’ markets play a major role in the economic growth of the state,” said Hugh Weathers, South Carolina’s commissioner of agriculture. “When people visit farmers’ markets, it’s more than just a place to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. It’s an opportunity to help maintain important social ties, linking urban and rural populations.”

While the US Government still seems focused on promoting the industry position of biotech plants and chemical pesticides, other nations, like American consumers are focused on promoting organics.  For example, in India, the government has recently launched a campaign to promote organic farming. The government is offering subsidies to farmers for taking up organic farming of vegetables and to check rampant use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on vegetable farms. They are moving to increase organic farming from 500 hectares to 6,000 hectares over the next four years in one district and 8,570 in another district. This clearly is an example that the US could follow –especially in relationship to the Farm Bill subsidies allocations coming up in 2012.

Minnesota and California Courts Rule for Organic Farmer – Some Strides

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.  Oluf and Debra Johnson’s 1,500-acre organic farm has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson’s farm.  The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson’s farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. The Johnson’s took their loss the first time, but after PFU continued to break the law three more years in a row, and spray chemicals on windy days, thus contaminating the organic crop, the Johnson’s sued and settled out of court, a settlement which meant they sold their products at a lower price and not as organics.  In 2009, when PFU continued contaminated their fields, the Johnson’s sued again, this time for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. The Johnson’s appealed.  The Appeals Court ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.

In California, an organic farm recently won a million dollar lawsuit from a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away.  The entire season’s crop of herbs from organic farm was lost as a result.   The tide may be turning against GM producers whose materials contaminate neighboring farms with this new precedent.

Comment Submission:  Proposed Rulemaking on Federal Leafy Green Vegetable Marketing RegsReference Docket Number: [Doc. No. AO–FV–09–0138; AMS–FV–09–0029; FV09–970–1]

The POP Campaign (Preserve Organic Power), a voice of hundreds of thousands of consumers and families across this country, adamantly opposes the USDA’s proposed rulemaking to create a Federal Leafy Green Vegetable Marketing Regulation.  This rulemaking is neither needed nor desired.  The Federal government has in recent years enacted so many new laws to promote food safety, which in addition to the regulations that are already in place both at the Federal and State level, are sufficient to promote safer foods and processes.  Another layer simply does not make common sense nor is it cost effective; rather cost prohibitive. During these economic times, families in particular are being hit hard – and families are the basic fabric of a healthy America – we support regulations that help these families, not hinder their stability and foundational health.

Other Regulations Already Exist

State Regulations: As stated by the USDA, 90% or more of the leafy green vegetables grown in the United States are gown in California and Arizona both of whom have Leafy Green Marketing Agreements in place.  There is no need to implement yet another federal standard on the small farmers across the other 48 states.  Additionally, most producers of leafy green vegetables in the other states likely sell their products locally or intra-state to a neighboring state.

For farmers in California and Arizona, this new Federal agreement would provide an unreasonable additional layer of bureaucracy and costs, which will only drive the costs of leafy green vegetables higher.  As a Californian, I personally do not want this added burden. Americans, especially moms with families who we hear from, are already bearing the burden of substantially higher food costs during a time with high unemployment rates, skyrocketing fuel costs, and higher costs of living across the board.  This is not a time to bleed these families.

Federal Guidelines Already Exist

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already has in place two guidelines and is in the final stages of a leafy green specific guideline.  These guidelines, listed below are sufficient instruction at the Federal level.

The FDA currently has Good Agricultural Practice Guidelines including

1. ‘‘Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables’’(1998), and the
2. ‘‘Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables’’ (2008).
3. A new FDA Guideline entitled, ‘‘Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for Lettuce and Leafy Greens Supply Chain’’ is in the process of being finalized.

Furthermore, the FDA has a mandatory Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) regulation for manufacturers of fresh-cut leafy green vegetables.

Cost for Participation Presents an Undue Burden

As mentioned above, there are substantial costs associated with implementing this program.  These costs pose an unreasonable burden for both the farmer and the consumer, especially moms in this country.

• The USDA estimates that the cost per acre to become initially compliant will be $14-34 per acre.
• The USDA published two estimates for the annual cost of compliance:
  • $30-50 per acre
  • $48-105 per acre
  • Additionally, in California and Arizona, there would be additional costs for complying with the state marketing agreements. (This means even higher costs at the markets.)
  • Most small farms that produce leafy green vegetables also qualify as ‘handlers’ because they often market their products directly to consumer or to local markets.  The USDA provided that evidence shows that a small handler who is also a small producer would have audit verification or compliance related costs ranging from $67 to $95 per acre.  (For example, a 500 acre farm might incur greater than $45,000 up front and an additional $50,000 annually to become compliant. Most small farms likely cannot bear this burden and the higher costs will make them less competitive in the marketplace.)

Additionally, the fees required in the program will not cover the entire cost of managing this program. Guess what –the taxpayer and families will bear additional costs annually in the USDA budget and the consumer trickle down.

Organic Farms Are Already Heavy Regulated – make an exception

As provided by the USDA[1]:  An increasing number of U.S. farmers are adopting these systems in order to lower input costs, conserve nonrenewable resources, capture high-value markets, and boost farm income. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 already facilitates domestic marketing of organically produced fresh and processed food, and assures consumers that such products meet consistent, uniform standards. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) finalized a rule to implement this legislation in 2002.  All but the smallest organic farmers and processors must be certified by a State or private agency accreditation under national standards. The program establishes:

• National production and handling standards for organically produced products, including a National List of substances that can and cannot be used.
• A national-level accreditation program for State and private organizations who must be accredited as certifying agents under the USDA national standards for organic certifiers.
• Requirements for labeling products as organic and containing organic ingredients.
• Rules for importation of organic agricultural products from foreign programs.

One possibility is to exempt organic farmers and small growers

Driving the Costs Up Will Reduce Access

The Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program of the USDA which Senator Tom Harkin has been a big supporter of, is the type of activity USDA should focus on, not the creation of a new monitoring program.  The Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program funds the delivery of fresh fruits and vegetables to children in schools, especially to low-income children who might not otherwise have the opportunity to consume fresh produce.  Driving the costs higher only undermines this program and the goals of families everywhere who are struggling to stay afloat in these challenging times and still provide their families with fresh produce including leafy green vegetables.

Food prices across the board are skyrocketing, and vegetables are among the foods that have risen the greatest, up 50% from a year ago. Conservatively, 68% of women in this country cite that the financial strain of the economy is threatening the American family; 52% of women with children under the age of 18 are feeling a huge overwhelm by financial burdens. Moms are saying “stop; help us”.

The POP Campaign strongly urges the USDA to terminate this proposed program and focus instead on promoting organic, sustainable farmers and farming which will provide higher quality foods for the American consumer, especially economically burdened moms and families.

USDA Moves Forward with Proposed Rulemaking on Federal

Leafy Green Vegetable Marketing Regulation

July 2011:  Deadline fast approaching to Submit Comments (July 28)

Comments in Support or Opposition to Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970:  (Leafy Green Vegetables) should be filed with

Hearing Clerk

United States Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1031–S

Washington, DC 20250–9200

Fax: (202) 720–9776

Or via the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Reference Docket Number: [Doc. No. AO–FV–09–0138; AMS–FV–09–0029; FV09–970–1]

Background: A September 2006 food borne illness incidence involving leafy green vegetables (spinach) resulted in a massive recall of spinach for fear of Escherichia coli (E. coli) contamination. Subsequently in 2007, members of the California leafy green vegetable industry initiated the establishment of a State marketing agreement for handlers of leafy green vegetables in which 99 percent of leafy green vegetables were covered.  In October 2007, Arizona enacted regulations which covered 75% of their leafy green production.  According to the USDA, participation in both the California and Arizona programs are voluntary, however; the requirements of these State marketing agreements are mandatory for all signatories within each respective State.

In June 2009, the following organizations petitioned the Agricultural Marketing Service division of the USDA requested the agency launch a federal rulemaking:

• United Fresh Produce Association,
• Produce Marketing
• Association,
• Georgia Fresh Vegetable
• Association,
• Georgia Farm Bureau,
• Texas Vegetable Association,
• Arizona
• Farm Bureau, Leafy Greens Council,
• California Farm Bureau,
• California Leafy
• Greens Products Handler Marketing Agreement,
• Grower-Shipper Association of Central California,
• Western Growers, and
• The Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association.

These groups proposed “the establishment of a program that would oversee a systematic application of good agricultural production, handling, and manufacturing practices for leafy green vegetables. Proponents stated that the proposed agreement would minimize

the potential for microbial contamination in production and handling systems and would improve consumer confidence in leafy green vegetables in the United States market.”

The suggested program would:

• Have voluntary participation
• If company signs agreement would have mandatory compliance
• Administered by USDA with Industry Comprised Administrative Board
• Add two advisory bodies to (1) identification and development of audit
• Metrics and (2) to advise the administrative body on research and development projects administered under the program
• Financed primarily by fees assessed to signatory members based on their production
• Secondary financing through contributions for research
• Audit metrics would require USDA approval prior to implementation
• It was suggested that audits be conducted by USDA  Inspection Service or “or persons or organizations authorized to audit on its behalf”

The USDA in their rulemaking acknowledges that a number of organizations opposed the development of this marketing agreement.  They include:

• the National Organic Coalition (NOC)
• Beyond Pesticides
• Center for Food Safety
• Equal Exchange
• Food and Water Watch
• Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
• Midwest Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
• National Cooperative Grocers Association
• Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance,
• Northeast Organic Farming Association-Interstate Council
• Organically Grown Company
• Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA
• the Union of Concerned Scientists

Reasons for opposition by many included:

• Costs associated with becoming compliant
• The existing proliferation of audit requirements from private sector customers
• The addition of a new and potentially conflicting set of audit requirements, and
• ‘‘Audit Fatigue’’
• The need for science-based production and handling requirements need for adequate peer-review of scientific studies used to establish them
• Potential conflicts between existing Federal, State, and local conservation wildlife, and environmental regulations and any proposed metrics
• The need for recognition of organic and other nonconventional production and handling practices in the development of audit metrics;
• The appropriateness and authority for USDA oversight of the proposed agreement; and,
• Whether there was the need for a national program

90 % of Production Already Covered by State Agreements

The USDA acknowledges that while there is leafy green vegetable production in every state, that 75% of all leafy green vegetables sold in the United States are produced in California and that 15% are produced in Arizona.  (Both states already have Leafy Green Marketing Agreements in place.) The remaining 10% is spread throughout the other 48 states and typically comes from small to medium size farms.

Other Regulations Already Exist

The FDA currently has Good Agricultural Practice Guidelines including

1. ‘‘Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables’’(1998), and the
2. ‘‘Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables’’ (2008).
3. A new FDA Guideline entitled, ‘‘Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for Lettuce and Leafy Greens Supply Chain’’ is in the process of being finalized.

Furthermore, the FDA has a mandatory Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) regulation for manufacturers of fresh-cut leafy green vegetables.

The AMS of the USDA, in partnership with State departments of agriculture, offers a voluntary, audit-based program that verifies adherence to the two FDA guidelines that are final above (and conceivable when the new FDA guidelines identified above will offer audits)

Cost for Participation is High

• The USDA estimates that the cost per acre to become initially compliant will be $14-34 per acre.  The USDA published two estimates for the annual cost of compliance:
  • $30-50 per acre
  • $48-105 per acre
  • Additionally, in California and Arizona, there would be additional costs for complying with the state marketing agreements.
  • Most small farms that produce leafy green vegetables also qualify as ‘handlers’ because they often market their products directly to consumer or to local markets.  The USDA provided that evidence shows that a small handler who is also a small producer would have audit verification or compliance related costs ranging from $67 to $95 per acre.

S. 1310 the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011

Senator Durbin, the number 2 man in the Senate, (the Democratic Whip), has for many years attempted to undermine the hard won victories of Proxmire, NLEA, and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). He has launched a new battled against the dietary supplement industry with the introduction of S. 1310 the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011. This can only spell trouble for the industry and the consumers who rely on supplements.

One company selling single serving products (Lazy Cakes) Melatonin ‘Brownies’ along with energy drinks that the FDA is looking to target, have given Senator Durbin a ‘Consumer Protection’ platform from which to launch legislation that would have much broader implications. This is a strategy that cannot be ignored or underestimated.

Senator Durbin Wants to Give the FDA Even More Power: In typical Durbin fashion, he issued press statements and introduced the legislation just as Congress was headed home for the July 4th holiday week. Also true to form, the press statements and the actual text of the legislation tell different stories. According to press accounts, Senator Durbin is seeking to have the FDA draw a strong line between dietary supplements and food additives, the Durbin/ Blumenthal “legislation would require FDA to establish a clear definition of which products are foods and should be regulated as such and which products are meant to be health aids and should be regulated as dietary supplements. “ If that was not bad enough (there is no indication that the drafts of DSHEA intended for a hard line to be drawn between foods and supplements), his legislation goes much further. Durbin’s proposed legislation chips away at the founding principles of food law as they relate to dietary supplements, pushing both closer to the drug regulatory framework, which even Pharma says is too lengthy and too costly. (Currently it is estimated that a drug company will spend around $1 billion and a dozen years to get a product approved.)

S. 1310:

• Adds Additional and Burdensome Registration Requirements for Manufacturers;

• Seeks to Supersede US Law with the Implementation of a European Union Style List of food ingredients and products which can be sold as supplements; and

• Will Be the Death Knell for Proprietary Blended Products.

Dietary Supplements and other Food are Already Heavily Regulated: All foods including dietary supplements are already heavily regulated. In the last few years Congress has passed major legislation including the Food Safety Bill that the FDA is working to implement.

Further, DSHEA, which was passed into law in 1994, has components that are not yet fully implemented. The laws on the books are sufficient to address the melatonin brownie issue as well as any questions about energy drinks; a concerted grassroots effort is needed to educate those involved and stop this bill from progressing. So far only Senators Durbin and Blumenthal are cosponsors. A concerted effort is needed to keep it that way.

Even if the Bill does not move through regular order in the Senate, Durbin is very powerful, may try to insert the Bill language into another Bill that is moving, so we will need to maintain vigilance and insure other Senators do not go along.

Health Freedom and the Food Supply

The desire for Americans and our global neighbors to maintain liberty has never been stronger than it is as we enter the Spring of 2011.  The focus on healthfreedom is a cornerstone of that liberty.  What happens in the agricultural community directly affects consumers’ access to quality dietary supplements as dietary supplements are foods.

Budget Battle: Washington is embroiled in budget battles that will go on for months.  The hard truth that we as a nation are grappling with is that for every dollar being spent by the United States Government, 45 cents of it is borrowed.  This is called deficit spending. There are only two ways to solve deficit spending – to decrease spending or to increase income.  Increasing the income of the United States means raising taxes, and the 50% of Americans who pay taxes in this country are not okay with that.  We’ve seen the size of government grow dramatically, with more than 100,000 federal jobs created and massive government programs like health care reform be enacted into law.  All of the economic experts and most Americans understand this is not sustainable.

Families around the world are feeling the crushing weight of increased food and fuel prices.  In the United States, food prices have gone up about 8 %. In North Africa and Middle East, countries such as Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Jordan, and Libya have seen food prices skyrocket, more than 25% in under a year. It is a contributing factor to the instability of these countries.  Food shortages are not uncommon.  Just a few years ago, the Codex Alimentarius instructed its member countries to pass food control legislation (which in the US called food safety) and something.  Increased regulations contribute to increase pricing as companies always pass the additional costs on to the consumer.

Health Freedom Cannot Fall by the Wayside: Health freedom is not just a battle to protect access to dietary supplements.  The right to maintain control of your own decision making in health including in the foods you purchase is as key to liberty as freedom of speech.  The founders of this great nation wrote of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Nutritional liberty including informed consent through proper labeling and maintaining an active free market with expanded choices are essential.

Food Safety Battle Continues: During the last few years as the federal government has sought to expand its regulatory powers for the food supply, the USDA has announced it will in essence deregulate certain GM products.  The announcement in January that the USDA will allow the unrestricted commercial cultivation of GM alfalfa sees has many in Congress and the public outraged.  The environmental impact statement recently released is inadequate. Alfalfa is the 4^th largest crop planted in the United States and the hay it produces is used to feed cattle and horses.

American consumers and farmers like our global neighbors have rejected the industrial push for genetically modified (GM or GMO) seeds and continue to fight tough battles to keep these seeds away from agricultural communities, especially organic farms. Everyone desires clear and accurate labeling on foods, including GM foods including meats from animals fed GM grains. The public has also rejected the concept of mandatory irradiation of their foods, including organic foods (even herbs). There is a broad consensus among the public that if GM foods are going to enter the market place, and if foods are irradiated, that they ought to be truthfully labeled.  The consumer should be accurately informed and be given the liberty to make their own choices.

Attempts at one size fits all regulation in agriculture, puts many small, local, and specialty farms at risk for elimination.  Americans want raw foods including herbs to truly be raw.  In addition to the irradiation battle farmers have been challenged with, now forced pasteurization is being forced upon more industries than just the dairy industry.  Most consumers do not realize that when they pay extra for eggs that are organic, when there is an ink stamp on the egg, it means the eggs were heated up.

Keep in mind, if an organic herb farmer is forced to compromise their techniques through onerous government regulations, then the dietary supplements that are made from those herbs are compromised as well.   At every turn, government gives the appearance of ignoring the desires of the public as it relates to protecting organic and promoting techniques and products the public opposes.

Organic Foods and Farms

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) recently published statements regarding the growth of the industry.

Organic food industry continues to see growth.  Gary Lucier, economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research, said that recent estimates of the fresh produce industry by Roberta Cook, economist at the University of California-Davis, puts consumer value of fresh fruits and vegetables at close to $113 billion. Lucier said the OTA’s $9.79 billion estimate of the consumer value of organic fresh produce doesn’t seem too out of line compared to Cook’s estimate, representing about 8% of the total fresh produce consumer value. “It is not inconceivable to me that you would have 8% to 10% of the total sales value as organic,” he said.

An OTA survey found:

· 78% of organic farms plan to maintain or increase organic production levels in the next five years.

· Roughly 40% of organic operations added jobs in 2010

· 96% of operations plan to maintain or increase employment opportunities in 2011.

The 2010 growth range of organic fresh produce of better than 10% was still less than half what it was in the two or three years before the recession.  Rising gas prices will affect the price of foods, but consumers remain interested.

Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically modified (GM) or engineered foods affect the entire food supply including dietary supplements. The risks are not fully understood.  Consumers and farmers alike oppose their broad adoption. During the last few years as the federal government has sought to expand its regulatory powers for the food supply, the USDA has announced it will in essence deregulate certain GM products.  The announcement in January that the USDA will allow the unrestricted commercial cultivation of GM alfalfa sees has many in Congress and the public outraged.  The environmental impact statement recently released is inadequate. Alfalfa is the 4^th largest crop planted in the United States and alfalfa hay is used to feed dairy cattle and horses.

GM Alfalfa – the battle rages on:   One of the most pressing issues that the USDA has not resolved for GM foods is product drift.  Organic farmers say their crops and their livelihoods can be damaged by pollen drifting from neighboring fields. Crops cannot qualify as organic, and the premiums often accompany the designation, if they contain GM material.  The National Organic Coalition says all GM crops should be regulated and there should be a ban on GM corn, sugar beets, alfalfa and canola and other GM crops “too promiscuous to prevent GM contamination.”

In March farmers and a number of consumer groups filed a lawsuit against the USDA stating the approval of the unrestricted planting of GM alfalfa seeds is unlawful because it will, according to their own data lead to a dramatic increase in the use of toxic herbicides.  “USDA data show that 93% of all the alfalfa planted by farmers in the U.S. is grown without the use of any herbicides. With the full deregulation of GE alfalfa, USDA estimates that up to 23 million more pounds of toxic herbicides will be released into the environment each year.”

Genetically Engineered Salmon:  A genetically engineered salmon is likely to be sold in the United States in the near future.  This salmon has higher hormone rates in than wild salmon and the risk to humans is not fully understood.  Unless the FDA changes its current policies, the industry would be allowed to market these salmon without any notification on the label that it is GE salmon.  This labeling issue is at the core of consumers’ concerns.

Legislation:

H.R. 521 and S. 2230 introduced by Congressman Don Young of Alaska and Senator Mark Begich to prevent the FDA from approving genetically engineered fish.

These same legislators introduced H.R. 520 and S. 229 to “deem a food to be misbranded if it contains genetically-engineered fish unless the food bears a label stating that it contains genetically-engineered fish.”

There are only a few sponsors of these bills to date.  These bills deserve a grass roots push for support, otherwise they will languish.

This is our new effort to a Change the Health and Wealth of the World – you can become involved very easily - it will benefit your personal health through a product greatly while you contribute to the POP Campaign Efforts – contributing to something bigger than ourselves.  Here is the link to the article -read about MOMS4POP near the end – and contact us to participate.  Contact us –  Rudi_Leonardi-4

LAST CHANCE on FOOD FREEDOM and CHOICE – 24 hours to go – call your Congressional Representatives the last vote was 212 to 206 with 17 not voting – educate them – NO on the Food Safety Bill – see numbers of your representatives -http://clerk.house.gov/member_