Sprouts Farmers Market Inc., a grocer focusing on organic and natural foods, appears to be eyeing at least two Philadelphia-area locations as it brings its fresh veggies, grass-fed meats, and other munchies for the nutrition-minded to a broader swath of the United States.

The Phoenix-based chain is to be a tenant at the Lincoln Square development at Broad Street and Washington Avenue in South Philadelphia, according to a presentation posted to the website of the developments owner, Kimco Realty Corp.

Sprouts also has a deal to take space in part of a property formerly occupied by Macys at the Moorestown Mall in Burlington County, according to an April report in Food Trade News, an industry publication.

Sprouts, which now has 268 stores in 15 states though none yet in the Northeast is in the middle of an expansion aimed at satisfying growing demand for organic and minimally processed foods at prices that are said to often undercut competitors'.

Sales of organic food soared in the United States to $43.3 billion in 2015, from $3.6 billion in 1997, according to the Washington-based Organic Trade Association.

Burt Flickinger III, managing director of the retail consultant Strategic Resource Group in New York, said that Philadelphia, where Whole Foods currently has a near monopoly on the appetites of the kale-munching set, is particularly promising for the retailer.

But competition is heating up, with Moms Organic Market about to open its first Center City store after locations in Bryn Mawr and Cherry Hill and existing grocers in the region, including Aldi and ShopRite, boosting their own organic and natural offerings, he said.

Bfresh, a sibling of Giant Food Stores under the Ahold Delhaize corporate umbrella, and Germanys Lidl also are expected to enter the market soon with stores that lean heavily on organic foods, Flickinger said.

All this could be good news for consumers, he said: There will be a price war in Philadelphia of unprecedented proportions.

Sprouts did not immediately respond to an email seeking details about its planned Philadelphia locations.

Leigh Minnier, a Kimco spokeswoman, said she could not confirm any details about Sprouts plans at Lincoln Square, where it would share lower-level retail space with a Target Corp. store and a branch of the PetSmart chain.

Kimco paid $10 million for a 90 percent interest in the South Philadelphia development project, which also will include 322 rental apartments, the New Hyde Park, N.Y.-based shopping-center company said in an April news release announcing its earnings.

Heather Crowell, a spokeswoman for Moorestown Mall-owner Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, said Tuesday that she could not confirm the Food Trade News report. Officials with the company said last month that a food market was among three new tenants that will take the place of the malls shuttered Macys store.

Sprouts chief executive Amin Maredia said during a May 4 conference call with analysts that the company has 63 sites approved for new stores and 43 signed leases for the coming years, but he did not specify their locations.

Its late 2016 openings included a Raleigh, N.C., store that is now the closest Sprouts location to Philadelphia, as well as a new produce-distribution center in Atlanta, he said.

The company also is said to be exploring a merger with Albertsons Cos., owner of the regionally prominent Acme Markets chain,Bloomberg reported in March.

Robert Gorland, a supermarket-site-selection specialist with Rahway, N.J.-based Matthew P. Casey & Associates, said he doesnt think Sprouts would be closing in on the two Philadelphia-area locations if it didn't have bigger plans for the region.

You would think they might be looking at some other sites, versus opening one store in Pennsylvania and one store in New Jersey, he said.

Published: May 9, 2017 11:59 AM EDT | Updated: May 9, 2017 12:11 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Read the original:

Natural grocer Sprouts seen landing in S. Philly, Moorestown in nationwide expansion - Philly.com

The High Plains dairy complex reflects the new scale of the U.S. organic industry: it is big.

Stretching across miles of pastures and feedlots north of Greeley, Colo., the complex is home to more than 15,000 cows, making it more than a hundred times the size of a typical organic herd. It is the main facility of Aurora Organic Dairy, a company that produces enough milk to supply the house brands of Wal-Mart, Costco and other major retailers.

"We take great pride in our commitment to organic, and in our ability to meet the rigorous criteria of the USDA organic regulations," Aurora advertises.

But a closer look at Aurora and other large operations highlights critical weaknesses in the unorthodox inspection system that the USDA uses to ensure that "organic" food is really organic.

The U.S. organic market now counts more than $40 billion in annual sales, and includes products imported from about 100 countries. To enforce the organic rules across this vast industry, the USDA allows farmers to hire and pay their own inspectors to certify them as "USDA Organic." Industry defenders say enforcement is robust.

But the problems at an entity like Aurora suggests that even large, prominent players can fall short of standards without detection.

With milk, the critical issue is grazing. Organic dairies are required to allow the cows to graze daily throughout the growing season that is, the cows are supposed to be grass-fed, not confined to barns and feed lots. This method is considered more natural and alters the constituents of the cows milk in ways consumers deem beneficial.

But during visits by The Washington Post to Aurora's High Plains complex across nine days last year, signs of grazing were sparse, at best. Aurora said their animals were out on pasture day and night but during most Post visits the number of cows seen on pasture numbered in the hundreds.

A high-resolution satellite photo taken in mid-July by Digital Globe, a space imagery vendor, shows a typical situation only a few hundred on pasture. At no point were there any more than 10 percent of the herd out.

In response, Aurora spokesperson Sonja Tuitele dismissed the Post visits as anomalies and "drive-bys."

The milk produced also provides evidence that Aurora cows do not graze as required by organic rules. Testing conducted for the Post by Virginia Tech scientists shows that on a key indicator of grass-feeding, the Aurora milk matched conventional milk, not organic.

Finally, the Post contacted the inspectors who visited Aurora's High Plains dairy and certified it as "USDA Organic." Did their inspectors have evidence that the Aurora cows met the grazing requirement?

It turns out that they were poorly positioned to know.

The inspectors conducted the annual audit well after grazing season in November. That means that during the annual audit, inspectors would not have seen whether the cows were grazing as required, a breach of USDA inspection policy.

"We would expect that inspectors are out there during the grazing season," said Miles McEvoy, chief of the National Organic Program at USDA. He said that the grazing requirement is "a critical compliance component of an organic livestock operation."

If organic farms violate organic rules, consumers are being misled and overcharged.

In the case of milk, consumers pay extra often double when the carton says "USDA Organic" in the belief they are getting something different. Organic dairy sales amounted to $6 billion last year in the U.S.

The failure to comply with organic standards also harms other farms, many of them small. Following the rules costs extra because grazing requires more land and because cows that dine on grass typically produce less milk.

Whether an organic dairy is grazing its herd is relatively easy to see, especially if roads criss-cross their pastures. It is more difficult, however, for outsiders to judge whether a dairy is following other organic rules such as those regarding hormones and organic feed.

Ten years ago, after a complaint from a consumer group, Aurora faced USDA allegations that it breached organic rules regarding grazing and other issues. The USDA charged that Aurora was in "willful violation" of organic standards, but a settlement agreement allowed them to continue to operate.

There have been no charges since then.

But some small organic dairy farmers say that the new, large organic dairies that have popped up in the Southwest are violating standards.

On one-day visits to several large organic operations in Texas and New Mexico, a Post reporter saw similarly empty pastures. It was difficult to determine where their milk winds up on retail shelves, however, and so no chemical tests were pursued.

"About half of the organic milk sold in the U.S. is coming from very large factory farms that have no intention of living up to organic principles," said Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin nonprofit group representing thousand of organic farmers.

"Thousands of small organic farmers across the United States depend on the USDA organic system working. Unfortunately, right now, it's not working for small farmers, or for consumers."

Integrity of 'USDA Organic' seal

The "USDA Organic" seal that appears on food packaging essentially a USDA guarantee of quality was created by federal rules in 2000.

Until then, convincing customers that a product was "organic" could be a murky proposition everyone relied on informal definitions of organic and informal measures of trust.

The "USDA Organic" seal changed that, standardizing concepts and setting rules. It has proven a boon: Organic food sales rose from about $6 billion annually in 2000 to $40 billion in 2015, according to the Organic Trade Association.

The integrity of the new label, however, rested on an unusual system of inspections.

Under organic rules, the USDA typically doesn't inspect farms. Instead, farmers hire their own inspectors from lists of private companies and other organizations licensed by the USDA. An inspector makes an annual visit and it is arranged days or weeks in advance. Only 5 percent of inspections are expected to be done unannounced.

To keep the inspectors honest, the USDA reviews the records of each inspection outfit about every 2 1/2 years.

This inspection system saves the USDA money because it doesn't have to hire many inspectors. The compliance and enforcement team at the USDA National Organic Program has nine people one for every $4 billion in sales.

McEvoy acknowledged that having farmers choose their inspection companies is "fairly unique" within the USDA, but he noted that rising sales show that consumers "trust the organic label."

Others have doubts. Cornucopia publishes its own scorecard of organic dairies because, its officials say, the USDA has failed to weed out the bad.

"Consumers look at that cartoon label on organic milk with a happy cow on green pasture with a red barn, but that's not always the reality," said Katherine Paul of the Organic Consumers Association. "What we've said all along is that organic milks are not created equal, and your results show that."

Impact on small dairies

At the other end of the scale from Aurora are many small dairies who have come to rely on the USDA Organic label, investing in the opportunity it represents, believing in its promise.

Several years ago, for example, Bobby Prigel, a fourth-generation dairyman with a 300-acre spread of rolling pastures and white plank fences in northern Maryland, made the switch.

With milk prices declining and feed costs rising, Prigel figured he had to try something different. The herd had been in the barn area for decades, munching feed. One day he shooed them out to pasture.

Here's the funny thing, he said: his cows seemed confused. Though cows are natural grazers like the wild aurochs they descended from the grazing instincts of his cows had been dulled.

"They didn't really know how to graze at first they didn't know how to bend down and get grass with their tongues," Prigel said one day during a break on his farm. Nor were they accustomed to walking much.

Prigel, meanwhile, had to make economic adjustments.

Producing milk according to the "USDA Organic" standard costs more.

To begin with, organic cows cannot be given hormones to stimulate milk production. And any feed or pasture for the cows must be organic that is, grown without most synthetic pesticides.

Second, to be considered organic, cows must obtain a certain percentage of their diet from grazing. Prigel is a purist and feeds his herd entirely from the pasture, but most organic dairies supplement the pasture with corn, soybeans or other grains, even during the grazing season.

The grazing requirement makes milk more costly to produce because it requires a certain amount of pasture land and because a grazing cow produces less milk than one eating a grain diet optimized for milk production.

With grass-fed cows, "there's just not nearly as much milk," Prigel said.

On the upside, a farmer can sell certified organic milk for almost double the price of conventional, and there are other benefits, too: The milk is measurably different, and according to the USDA, it improves cow health and reduces the environmental impacts of agriculture. Moreover, because grazing is natural cow behavior, some believe it is more humane.

"Cows aren't supposed to stay inside and eat corn," Prigel said.

Conducting tests of milk

The grazing season typically runs from spring until the first frost. To evaluate the Aurora operation, the Post visited the High Plains dairy complex nine days during that period three in August, three in September and three in October. Roads criss-cross the farm allowing a view of their fields. In addition, in July, a satellite for Digital Globe snapped a high-resolution photo of the area.

Each of those ten days, only a very small portion of the 15,000 cow herd was seen on pastures. Many more were seen in feed lots.

In response, Aurora officials said that during the grazing season the cows are on pasture both day and night. Maybe, they said, on those days, the cows were elsewhere, being milked or otherwise tended.

However, the Post visited at different times of the day, sometimes twice in a day. Because the cows are milked in shifts, thousands of them should be out at any given time, farmers said.

Aurora did say that they stopped their grazing season on Sept. 30, so it's not surprising no cows were seen on the three days in October. It's unclear why Aurora decided to end their grazing season then, though, because the first frost was not until Oct. 20 in that area, according to weather records.

To see whether a lack of grazing was apparent in the milk, the Post turned to Virginia Tech dairy science professor Benjamin Corl, who analyzed eight different milks, some organic, some not, and all bottled during grazing season. He performed the tests without knowing the brand names of the samples.

Grass-fed cows tend to produce milk with elevated levels of two types of fat. One of the distinguishing fats is conjugated linoleic acid or CLA, which some regard as the clearest indicator of grass-feeding. The other is an "Omega-3" fat known as alpha-linolenic acid. Both have been associated with health benefits in humans, although the amounts found in milk are relatively small.

Another type of fat linoleic acid, an Omega-6 fat tends to be sparser in milks that are pasture fed.

The results: Prigel's milk stood out for its grassy origins. It ranked at the top for CLA and was a distant last for linoleic acid.

The milk from Snowville Creamery, another brand that boasts of pasture-grazing, ranked second for CLA.

"Those two milks stood out like sore thumbs," said Corl, who "You can tell those animals have been on grass."

At the other extreme were the conventional milks from 365 and Lucerne. They ranked, as expected, at the bottom for the fats associated with grass feeding and at the top for the fat associated with conventional feeding.

Large organic brands Horizon and Organic Valley ranked roughly in between the extremes for two of the three measures.

As for Aurora's milk, despite its "USDA Organic" label, it was very close to conventional milk. On two of the three measures, CLA and linoleic acid, they were pretty much the same as conventional milk. On the third measure, alpha-linolenic acid, Aurora ranked slightly better than the conventional milks, but below the other USDA organic samples.

The milk tested by the Post had been processed at Aurora's Colorado processing plant, according to the number stamped on the bottle. More than 80 percent of the milk that Aurora sells is produced at its own farms; it also purchases milk from other dairies, according to the company.

It wasn't the first time that Aurora milk has tested poorly for signs of grass feeding. In 2008, The Milkweed, a dairy economics report, compared Aurora's milk to other organic milks. Of 10 organic milks ranked for the fats associated with grass feeding, Aurora's was last.

"There has been an obvious failure by USDA to enforce the organic pasture standard," Pete Hardin, editor and publisher of The Milkweed, said in a recent interview.

Investigation 10 years ago

Tuitele, the Aurora spokesperson, dismissed the milk tests and declined to comment in depth on them because they were "isolated" and because there are "so many variables that are unknown."

She suggested that Aurora milk may have tested differently, not because of a lack of grazing, but because Colorado pastures may have different plants. But milks from the Rocky Mountain region and those from the Mid-Atlantic vary a little, according to a 2013 study of organic milks published in PlosOne not enough to explain the gap in the results.

Aurora's inspectors also stood by Aurora's milk.

While most inspectors are private organizations, Aurora hired staff from the Colorado Department of Agriculture, which it pays about $13,000 annually.

When asked about the Aurora inspection being done after grazing season, an official for the Colorado Department of Agriculture initially suggested that other audits may have been conducted at High Plains last year. But Tuitele later wrote that the November visit was the only audit of its High Plains complex last year.

Aurora and their inspectors have been under scrutiny before.

About 10 years ago, the USDA launched an investigation into Aurora's organic practices.

By April 2007, USDA said it identified "willful violations" of organic rules by the dairy. Aurora had, among other things, for three years "failed to provide a total feed ration that included pasture."

The USDA proposed to revoke Aurora's organic status.

It also also proposed to suspend the Colorado Department of Agriculture from certifying organic livestock "due to the nature and extent of these violations."

Four months later, though, the case was resolved.

Aurora pledged to make improvements and was allowed to continue operating. It issued a press release saying that the USDA had "dismissed the complaints ... following an extensive review" a finding contrary to the view at USDA, which issued a press release saying "the complaint was not dismissed." It noted that the consent agreement called for Aurora to "make major changes."

For its part, the Colorado Department of Agriculture agreed "to make several changes in its operation," including hiring more personnel and staff training, according to a USDA press release.

Aurora also settled a related class action lawsuit for $7.5 million in 2012, and said it did not admit wrongdoing.

Since then, Aurora, already gargantuan, has continued to grow. In recent months it has been considering an expansion in Columbia, Mo., that may rely on milk from as many as 30,000 cows, according to local media coverage.

The growth of mega-dairies that skimp on grazing and produce cheap milk appears to be crushing many small dairies, some analysts said.

"The mom and pop the smaller traditional family dairies who are following the pasture rules are seeing their prices erode," said Hardin, The Milkweed editor. "It is creating a heck of a mess."

Will Costello contributed to this report.

See original here:

Why your milk may not be truly organic - Allentown Morning Call

Why are consumers willing to pay almost double for food labeled organic? The average consumer probably believes that the USDA Organic label issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture implies the food comes from small local farms that use production techniques that are environmentally friendly and result in food that is better for human health. The Washington Post published an article recently about an organic farm that does not seem to be consistent with such perceptions. The High Plains dairy complex in Colorado, the main facility of Aurora Organic Dairy, has over 15,000 cows. In the organic dairy industry 87 percent of farms have less than 100 cows, but farms with 100 or more cows produce almost half of organic dairy products.

The Post article argues that these large dairy operations may be violating the USDAs regulations for organic milk. Though Aurora officials maintain that they meet all the requirements for the USDA Organic label, the article contends that satellite images, visual inspections by Post reporters, and tests of milk from High Plains all indicate that the company may not be complying with the natural grazing standards of the organic regulations.

But the Post article misses the important point that even if Aurora were in technical compliance with the grazing regulation, the label does not convey any information about health and environmental benefits. As then-secretary of agriculture Dan Glickman stated at the release of the final standards for organic foods in 2002:

Let me be clear about one thing: the organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is organic a value judgment about nutrition or quality.

John Cohrssen and Henry Miller, in the spring 2016 issue of Regulation, argue that on average, organic foods are neither safer nor better for human health than non-organic foods. And the USDA has located the National Organic Program in the departments Agricultural Marketing Service, a service that is exempted from environmental analysis because its programs and activities have been found to have no individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. In fact, organic farms may cause more harm to the environment because they require the use of more land and water than conventional farming.

Though the touted benefits of organic foods may be non-existent, federal spending on organic agriculture under the 2014 Farm Act was over $160 million dollars and customer perceptions of organic food safety and quality persist. As Cohrssen and Miller note, a 2014 Academics Review analysis concluded that because of the USDA Organic label, the American taxpayer-funded national organic program is playing an ongoing role in misleading consumers into spending billions of dollars in organic purchasing decisions based on false and misleading health, safety, and quality claims.

Whether or not Aurora has been following the standards of organic labeling or organic foods live up to their supposed benefits, the organic label itself has been very useful for farmers. But should government aid producers at the expense of consumers and taxpayers?

The rest is here:

Should Taxpayers Back the 'Organic' Label? - Cato Institute (blog)

Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:55 a.m.

The standard Gobox filled with organic produce from Grower's Organic.

Mark Antonation

Grower's Organic co-founder Brian Freeman has been working in the organic produce business long enough that he remembers when people would tell him that organic farming was just a fad that wouldn't last. But that was before Grower's Organic launched in 2005 as a wholesale company focused on supplying local grocery stores and restaurants with quality fruits, vegetables and herbs. And this spring, Freeman has launched a new program to sell directly to consumers: Gobox weekly produce boxes.

Community Supported Agriculture programs, or CSAs, are nothing new; customers fork over a few hundred dollars before the growing season begins to ensure the farmer has cash flow to get things growing; in return, weekly boxes of whatever the farm is growing are delivered to those who have contributed. It's a great way to support local farms while supplementing your grocery purchases with healthy vegetables. But the process has a few shortcomings that most CSA members are willing to overlook. Early-season boxes tend to be underwhelming in terms of variety, and even at the peak of growing season, deliveries can be dominated by whichever crop is biggest at the time. That's fine for items like tomatoes or cherries that can be preserved, but what to do with all that zucchini?

The Pretty Ugly box is great for shoppers who prize flavor over beauty.

Mark Antonation

Gobox solves those problems by utilizing produce from the entire network of farms in the Grower's Organic network. Freeman works closely with organic Colorado farms to bring in the best of everything in season, but he also looks to California, Mexico and elsewhere to broaden his selection (for example, watermelon are at their peak in Baja, Mexico, right now, but won't be ready for several months in Colorado). That means the Goboxes will always be filled with a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. To critics of shipping organic produce long distances, Freeman points out that conventionally grown produce is often so dependent on petroleum products for heavy machinery, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides that organic food trucked in from Mexico or California still has a smaller carbon footprint than non-organic Colorado produce, all while increasing the scope of organic farming around the world.

The Goboxes come in several configurations and price points. The small, standard package (pictured above) is meant for one or two people for a week and costs $22; there's a large size for three or four people for $32. The Pretty Ugly box comprises the less-than-perfect fruits and vegetables that are often discarded by grocery stores or that end up being processed into canned or frozen products because they don't meet most shoppers' standards of beauty. The produce is still tasty and edible Freeman says some of them are actually better because of concentrated sugars but may appear wrinkled, spotted or misshapen. The Pretty Ugly box comes in the small size only and costs $17, with $1 of each purchase going toward We Don't Waste, a nonprofit organization that redistributes unused foods from restaurants and other food-service facilities.

Grower's Organic will also soon launch a Foodie box (June 16) with more exotic items like white asparagus and fava-bean pods, and the Native box (July), which will be filled with Colorado-grown produce, both at a slightly higher price point.

Whichever box customers choose, there's no membership required. You can start and stop at any point, so you're not committed to spending hundreds of dollars. Just sign up on the Grower's Organic websiteby noon Thursday on a given week for pickup on Friday or Saturday (you choose the day and time), then head over to Grower's Organic at 6400 Broadway.

Scott Callender shows off lettuces grown in his shipping-container vertical farm.

Mark Antonation

The Gobox program isn't the only thing new at Grower's Organic. Out back, a shipping container has been converted into a vertical vegetable garden by Scott Callender, owner of Callender Farms. Callender grows lettuces, herbs, peppers and other vegetables on vertical strips suspended from the ceiling of the container. Lighting, water and carbon dioxide levels are all controlled to give the plants the best growing environment while limiting the use of resources.

Callender says his setup uses 90 percent less water than conventional farming, and he can grow as much produce in 320 square feet of space as he could on 1.6 acres of land. Salanova lettuce is one of his biggest crops, but chives, a zippy wasabi arugula and even root vegetables are part of the output. Callender sells to restaurants through Grower's Organic, so you may have already eaten something from the vertical farm without realizing it.

Organically grown wasabi arugula from the Callender Farms vertical farm.

Mark Antonation

Link:

The New Gobox from Grower's Organic Provides Fresh Alternative to CSAs - Westword

Right Hooks

Over the years, food fads have come and gone this diet comes in, that cancer-causing food goes out only later to come back in because the science wasnt settled. Many Americans are constantly looking for that new-and-improved way to health and weight loss. Organic food is arguably one of those fads. At its essence, its a rejection of or at least an effort to minimize the impact of industrialization and corporate farming and to return to the days of yore when things were done more naturally. It costs a heck of a lot more to produce far less, but is it worth it?

That depends on who you ask. Some consumers swear by quality organic food, and take comfort in its supposed sustainability. The U.S. Department of Agriculture gives its seal of approval (literally) to all kinds of organic food, and has numerous and rigorous regulations for what it takes to earn that seal. But others see sophistry, a marketing gimmick and a needless limiting of food supplies.

The Washington Post conducted an investigation of one organic dairy farm in Colorado, leading to some interesting findings. (Lets stop here to offer the caveat that the Post doesnt have the final say or the best track record). But here are some simple facts they recount:

The USDA Organic seal that appears on food packaging essentially a USDA guarantee of quality was created by federal rules in 2000.

Organic food sales rose from about $6 billion annually in 2000 to $40 billion in 2015, according to the Organic Trade Association.

In the case of milk, consumers pay extra often double when the carton says USDA Organic, in the belief they are getting something different. Organic dairy sales amounted to $6 billion last year in the United States.

Is the milk worth double the price simply because the government says so? Perhaps not if the Posts investigation is to be believed. The farm in question didnt appear to live up to the USDA requirements, and inspectors which the USDA allows farms to hire independently werent really in a position to determine otherwise. About half of the organic milk sold in the U.S. is coming from very large factory farms that have no intention of living up to organic principles, said Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit group representing thousands of organic farmers. Thousands of small organic farmers across the United States depend on the USDA organic system working. Unfortunately, right now, its not working for small farmers or for consumers.

We tend to conclude that organic food is overrated and overpriced, because thats what happens when government puts its thumb on the scales. The benefit of modern farming is to feed more people for less money, while organic food feeds fewer people for more money. Is organic bad then? No, though perhaps the proper phrase is caveat emptor.

Read the original post:

Business Review Board: About That Sustainable Organic Food ... - Patriot Post

Organic foods have exploded in popularity over the last two decades.

In fact, US consumers spent $39.1 billion on organic produce in 2014 (1).

The popularity does not seem to be slowing down, as sales increased by more than 11% from 2014 to 2015 (1).

Many people think organic food is safer, healthier and tastier than regular food (2).

Others say its better for the environment and the well-being of animals.

This article objectively compares organic and non-organic foods, including their nutrient content and effects on human health.

The term organic refers to the process of how certain foods are produced.

Organic foods have been grown or farmed without the use of artificial chemicals, hormones, antibiotics or genetically modified organisms.

In order to be labelled organic, a food product must be free of artificial food additives.

This includes artificial sweeteners, preservatives, coloring, flavoring and monosodium glutamate (MSG).

Organically grown crops tend to use natural fertilizers like manure to improve plant growth. Animals raised organically are also not given antibiotics or hormones.

Organic farming tends to improve soil quality and the conservation of groundwater. It also reduces pollution and may be better for the environment.

The most commonly purchased organic foods are fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Nowadays there are also many processed organic products available, such as sodas, cookies and breakfast cereals.

Bottom Line: Organic foods are produced through farming practices that only use natural substances. This means avoiding all artificial chemicals, hormones, antibiotics or genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Studies comparing the nutrient content of organic and non-organic foods have provided mixed results.

This is most likely due to natural variation in food handling and production.

However, evidence does suggest that foods grown organically may be more nutritious.

Several studies have found that organic foods generally contain higher levels of antioxidants and certain micronutrients, such as vitamin C, zinc and iron (3, 4, 5, 6).

In fact, antioxidant levels can be up to 69% higher in these foods (6).

One study also found that organically grown berries and corn contained 58% more antioxidants and up to 52% higher amounts of vitamin C (5).

Whats more, one study reported that replacing regular fruit, vegetables and cereals with organic versions could provide extra antioxidants in the diet. This was comparable to eating 1-2 extra portions of fruit and vegetables daily (6).

Organic plants do not rely on chemical pesticide sprays to protect themselves. Instead, they produce more of their own protective compounds, namely antioxidants.

This may partly explain the higher levels of antioxidants in these plants.

Organically grown crops have also been shown to have lower levels of nitrate. In fact, studies have shown that nitrate levels are 30% lower in these crops (6, 7).

High nitrate levels are linked to an increased risk of certain types of cancer (8).

Theyre also linked to a condition called methemoglobinemia, a disease in infants that affects the bodys ability to carry oxygen (8).

That being said, many people believe that the harmful effects of nitrates have been overstated. The benefits of eating vegetables far outweigh any negative effects.

Organic milk and dairy products may contain higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and slightly higher amounts of iron, vitamin E and some carotenoids (7, 9).

However, organic milk may contain less selenium and iodine than non-organic milk, two minerals that are essential for health (9).

A review of 67 studies found that organic meat contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and slightly lower levels of saturated fats than conventional meat (10).

A higher intake of omega-3 fatty acids has been associated with many health benefits, including a reduced risk of heart disease.

While several studies find organic foods to contain more nutrients, many others have found insufficient evidence to recommend organic over inorganic (11).

An observational study comparing the nutrient intakes of nearly 4,000 adults consuming either organic or conventional vegetables found conflicting results.

Although a slightly higher intake of certain nutrients was seen in the organic group, this was most likely due to higher overall vegetable consumption (12).

A review of 55 studies found no differences in the nutrient content of organic versus regular crops, with the exception of lower nitrate levels in organic produce (13).

Another review of 233 studies found a lack of strong evidence to conclude that organic foods are more nutritious than regular foods (11).

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that these studies vary quite widely in their results.

This is because the nutrient content of food depends on many factors, such as soil quality, weather conditions and when the crops are harvested.

The composition of dairy products and meat can be affected by differences in animal genetics and animal breed, what the animals eat, the time of year and type of farm.

The natural variations in the production and handling of foods make comparisons difficult. Therefore, the results of these studies must be interpreted with caution.

Bottom Line: Organically grown crops may have less nitrate and more of certain vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. Organic dairy products and meat may have more omega-3 fatty acids. However, the evidence is mixed.

Many people choose to buy organic food in order to avoid artificial chemicals.

Evidence suggests that consuming these foods may reduce your exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria (11).

One study found that levels of cadmium, an extremely toxic metal, were 48% lower in organic produce. In addition, pesticide residues were four times more likely to be found in non-organic crops (6).

It is important to note that the higher levels of cadmium and pesticide residue in conventionally grown produce were still well below safety limits (14).

However, some experts worry that cadmium can accumulate over time in the body, potentially causing harm. Washing, scrubbing, peeling and cooking food can reduce these chemicals, although it doesnt always remove them completely (15).

Nevertheless, evidence suggests that the risk of exposure to pesticide residue in foods is small and unlikely to cause harm (16).

Since organic farming does not use antibiotics in animals, these products generally contain slightly lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (17, 18).

Bottom Line: Choosing organic foods may reduce your exposure to toxins, pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, the levels of toxins in regular produce are generally well below the safety limits.

There is some evidence suggesting that organic foods have health benefits.

For example, several lab studies found that their higher antioxidant content helped protect cells from damage. And animal studies show that organic diets may benefit growth, reproduction and the immune system (7).

One study also reported that chickens fed an organic diet showed reduced weight gain, and had stronger immune systems (19).

Observational studies in humans have linked organic foods to a lower risk of allergies and eczema in children and infants (7, 20, 21).

A large observational study of 623,080 women found no difference in cancer risk between those who never ate organic food and those who ate it regularly (22).

Another study found that antioxidant levels were higher in men following an organic diet. However, this study was small and not randomized (23).

When 16 people followed an organic or conventional diet over two 3-week periods, those on the organic diet had slightly higher levels of certain antioxidants in their urine. Yet this study also had limitations that may have caused the differences (24).

Unfortunately, theres simply not enough strong evidence available to confirm that organic foods benefit human health more than conventional foods (7, 11).

More high-quality studies are needed.

Bottom Line: There is not enough strong evidence available to prove that eating organic provides health benefits over eating regular foods.

Just because a product is labeled organic, it doesnt mean that it is healthy.

Some of these products are still processed foods high in calories, sugar, salt and added fats.

For example, organic cookies, chips, sodas and ice cream can all be purchased in supermarkets.

Despite being organic, these products are still unhealthy. So if you are trying to lose weight or eat healthy, you may be harming yourself by eating these foods.

Organic product labels will often state that the ingredients are natural for example, using raw cane sugar instead of plain sugar. However, sugar is still sugar.

The majority of the population consumes too much sugar already. To think its healthy to consume lots of organic sugar is simply wrong.

In simple terms, when you choose organic junk food, you may just be choosing a slightly higher-quality version of regular junk food.

However, since regulations generally ban the use of artificial food additives in these foods, buying organic is a good way to avoid a lot of the chemicals that are often added to conventional foods.

Bottom Line: Processed organic food can still be low in nutrients and high in added fat, sugar and calories. Organic junk food is still junk food.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has set up an organic certification program.

This means any farmer or food producer selling organic food must meet strict government standards.

If you decide to choose organic, its important to look for the USDA organic seal.

Also, watch for these statements on food labels, so you can identify food that is truly organically grown:

If a product contains less than 70% organic ingredients, it cannot be labeled organic or use the USDA seal.

Similar standards are enforced in Europe, Canada and Australia. Each country or continent has its own seal to help consumers identify organic food.

Bottom Line: To identify organic food, look for the appropriate seal or a statement like one of the three examples above.

Organic food may contain more antioxidants and nutrients than regular food, although the evidence is mixed.

Consuming organic food may also reduce your exposure to artificial chemicals, hormones and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

However, it often costs more and may spoil faster.

Additionally, its not clear if going organic has additional health benefits.

Whether to buy organic is a choice you should make based on your personal preferences and values.

Read this article:

What is Organic Food, and is it Better Than Non-Organic?

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Research and Markets has announced the addition of the "France Organic Food & Beverages Market Size & Analysis, By Type, Market Share, Forecast and Opportunities 2017-2022" report to their offering.

Organic food & beverages market is forecast to touch USD 9.49 billion by 2022, owing to upsurge in the number of diseases caused by consumption of conventional food & beverages grown with more chemicals and pesticides, growing awareness resulting into change in consumers' taste and preference and increasing number of specialist organic stores. France organic food & beverages market is highly competitive market with large number of organic food companies.

In 2016, Organic Dairy Products' category accounted for the largest market share in the country's organic food & beverages market, and was closely followed by Organic grocery products including sweet and salty groceries. North West region is the largest regional market for organic food & beverages in France, as it is home to tens of millions of French consumers with high personal disposable income.

French organic food & beverages industry saw strong growth, owing to institutional support from French Government as well as European Union. Moreover, improvements in macro-economic policies, like moderate inflation and low interest rates also boosted consumers' sentiments and organic industry emerged as one of the beneficiary.

This report elaborates the following aspects of organic food & beverages market in the country:

Key Topics Covered:

1. Product Overview

2. Research Methodology

3. Executive Summary

4. Global Organic Food & Beverages Market Overview

5. France organic Food & Beverages Market Outlook

6. France Organic Dairy Market Outlook

7. France Organic Grocery Market Outlook

8. France Organic Fruits & Vegetable Market Outlook

9. France Organic Bread & Bakery Market Outlook

10. France Organic Meat Market Outlook

11. France Organic Beverages Market Outlook

12. France Other Organic Food Products Market Outlook

13. Supply Chain Analysis

14. France Organic Food & Beverages Market Dynamics

15. France Organic Food & Beverages Market Trends & Developments

16. Policy & Regulatory Landscape

17. France Economic Profile

18. Competitive Landscape

For more information about this report visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/mr9rdr/france_organic

Go here to see the original:

France $9.49 Billion Organic Food & Beverages Market Size & Analysis, By Type, Market Share, Forecast and ... - Business Wire (press release)

Last month, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) met in Denver, Colorado to discuss what might be the most hotly-debated subject in all of eco-agriculture: What, exactly, does "organic" mean?

The organic label is worth about $40 billion a year. An organic farmer can charge as much as twice the price for the same itemand work very hard for the ability to do so.

The United States is unlike most countries (or regions, like the EU) in that our organic certification can legally be extended to crops that are not grown in soil. Hydroponic and aquaponic produce is, typically, grown in perpetually-flowing water in which nutrients are dissolved, and in the US, some farms using these methods can be certified organic. Proponents of the hydroponic organic certification say that their farms can be more energy- and water-efficient than soil-based farms, that they can reduce transportation costs by being built basically anywhere (including indoors, smack in the middle of cities), and that they can be just as sustainable and eco-friendly as any traditional farm.

The other sidethe side that wants organic certification to be restricted to soil-based farmssees hydroponic organics as a victory for a spooky sort of agriculture controlled by corporations that perverts the very soul of the organic movement.

What does theNOSB, whichis in charge of actually making this decision, think? Theyre not sure yet. They determinedin Denver that they have more questions than answers, and that theyll needmore data before making any decision. For now, hydrorgranics remain legal.

From our partners at VICE

Hydroponics and other technologies like it have captured the imagination of farmers for decades; the technologies enable young farmers, increasing numbers of whom live in cities, to create hyper-local farms that actually produce solid yields. Some systems incorporate big fish tankstilapia is a popular choicewhich are strung together with the plants to create an ad-hoc sort of ecosystem.

Its a very natural-type system, says Marianne Cufone, executive director of the Recirculating Farms Coalition. Its mimicking nature, where the fish do what they do in the water to live and breathe, and they create nutrients in doing so, and those nutrients then are taken with the water to the plants, and the plants absorb the nutrients they need to live from the water, cleaning the water for the fish. It is, basically, a high-tech artificial ponda closed-loop system where the fish help the plants and the plants help the fish. And we can eat both the plants and the fish.

These sorts of farms are gaining traction; most cities have a few. Many of them are too small to really be commercialmaybe theyre educational farms, maybe theyre startup-y experiments, maybe theyre an outpost of a restaurant or other facility that doesnt rely on the farm as a sole source of income.Fact is, theyrepopping up more and more.

Cufone represents these farmers, who put a lot of energy into making sure their farms are sustainable and ecologically sound. They reduce their water and energy use as far as possible, they use only accepted fertilizers and nutrients, and if they must use pesticide theyll only use accepted organic varieties. Describing her own farm, Cufone says, We have an open-air system, so we have natural pests and natural pest controls. We have bees and butterflies and helpful insects that keep away pests and so forth.

In her view, Cufone and farmers like her embody the spirit of sustainability and responsibility that customers look for in an organic product.

Ifeel bad for those [small] operations, that theyre getting wrapped up in this debate, but they are not the problem, says Linley Dixon. Dixon is the chief scientist for the Cornucopia Institute, a group that represents small farmers and has become a major voice in opposition to hydro-organics. Cornucopia firmly believes that the organic certification should go only to farmers who grow in soil.

Their argument against hydro-organic agribusiness is multi-fold. First is their belief in the inherent superiority of soil-grown produce. Kastel repeatedly cited the superior flavor and nutritional content of soil-grown vegetables. (That last part is up for debate; theres yet to be scientific consensus on whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional food. The former claimvaries based on crop.) Cornucopia also believes that the conceptthe soul, if you willof organics isnt just aboutthe singular crop: its about the the ecosystem, the environment, and the planet. Proper soil-based organics ensures healthy soil for generations, allows for thriving communities of beneficial insects, and, in turn, an entire ecosystem around them. Organics is about the planet beyond the pepper, they say.

Its probably worth pointing out here that Cornucopia repeatedly claims hydro-organic farms are illegal, while the hydro people repeatedly state that theyre following the letter of the law. Frankly, its too much of a tangle to go into: both sides make compelling legal arguments, but the real battle is not really about which side is, say, bending to abstraction a bunch of minor rules about nutrient sourcingits about money and soul. But probably mostly money.

This is like Soylent Green in the shape of a vegetable. Mark Kastel, cofounder of Cornucopia.

Cornucopia made it a point to say that they approve in spirit of small, sustainable hydro producers like Cufone; they think that stuff is cool, or at least cute. But they do not believe it should ever be labeled organic.

The organic label is worth about $40 billion a year. It is monstrously huge business, which is the only reason many farmers put up with the equally huge amounts of red tape it takes to actually get the certification. An organic farmer can charge as much as twice the price for the same itemand work very hard for the ability to do so. So while the organic standards were designed to reward the most conscientious of farmers, what its also done is entice less-conscientious corporations into hitting the bare minimum in order to rake in that sweet organic cash. This is all legal at the moment, keep in mind; Cornucopia is fighting to strengthen the restrictions on organic farmers, in a way that would box out those who, in their mind, are unworthy of the organic label.

The chief villains, to Dixon and Cornucopia, arent small timers, like rooftop farms in Brooklyn or progressive vertical projects in Chicago. Its gigantic agribusiness corporations, chiefly Wholesum Harvest and Driscolls. Both of those companies have gigantic organic hydroponic businesses, selling tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, peppers, and berries, which are grown, in some capacity,in hydroponic greenhouses. Its almost science fiction, Dan, to say that we want all of our food grown in these hermetically-sealed buildings, Mark Kastel, the cofounder of Cornucopia. told me. This is like Soylent Green in the shape of a vegetable. Kastel believes that these companies are not in the spirit of the organic movement and are thus deceiving customers who have a vision of organic produce coming from ethical farmers, harvested by ethical farmers in ethical overalls covered in ethical dirt.

Hydro-organics often does not include any outside interaction with the planet at all, being less spooky than Kastel thinks they are but no less hermetically sealed. When I presented that to Cufone, she protested. Not all aquaponic systems are entirely closed, she says. For example, the system that we run, we take some of the solid fish waste out and use it on in-ground growing. A lot of people do multiple forms of growing on a farm. But the current law doesnt require any of that to earn the certification.

I think adding new labels dilutes the USDA organic label, and I also think the whole separate but equal thing hasnt worked so well in the United States over the years. Marianne Cufone, Executive Director, Recirculating Farms Coalition

The bigger argument is about money, as the end of most arguments are.It is extremely easy for a hydroponic farm to transition to organic; all they need to do, as Kastel says, is turn a valve. (Basically, just replace any banned nutrients or fertilizers with permitted ones.) Turning a conventional soil-based farm into an organic farm is much, much more involved; you have to allow the soil to recover forthree years before you can call your food organic.

That enables big business like Wholesum Harvest to pump their low-cost organics into the market, boxing out smaller, older producers. And theres no way to tell the difference between hydro-organics and soil-based organics; theres only one label, and it just says certified USDA organic.

I offered a few possible solutions to this issue, all of whichfailed. What about a totally new label, I asked both Cufone and the folks from Cornucopia? Say, USDA Certified Sustainable Hydro, with totally new rules for what makes a truly sustainable and ecologically-friendly hydro farm. Has a nice ring to it, right? Cornucopia said sure, who cares, they can do whatever they want. Cufone, though, wasnt into it.

No, she said flatly. Because USDA organic is the thing, its the thing that consumers know, and I think its really important for it to be the significant label in the United States. I think adding new labels dilutes the USDAorganic label, and I also think the whole separate but equal thing hasnt worked so well in the United States over the years. Whoof.

Okay, how about this genius idea of mine: USDA Organic Hydro. Again, separate rules, and a new label, but it has the word organic in there. Cufone thought this was a great idea. The Cornucopia people, not so much.

Its pretty telling that they want to steal our word, says Dixon. Cornucopia does not want any farm besides a traditional operation wherein crops are planted in the Earth to have access to the word organic, in any way. That includes hydroponics, aquaponics, rooftop farming, container farming, all of it.Weve worked really hard for this word, and it means something, and they want it, and its not theirs, says Dixon. Let them build it for 30 years, like the organic farmers did.

For Cornucopia, any use of the organic word is, yes, a perversion, but also not enough of a differentiation; considering how lousy the state of agricultural education is in this country, Cornucopia worries that people wont much care about the difference between organic and organic hydro. And then theyre in the same position theyre in now: being boxed out by a bunch of techy corporations.

There is no conclusion on the future of organics. It is a complete mess. Without proper education to ensure that customers know or care about the difference between conventional, organic, hydroponic, sustainable hydroponic, and who knows what else, as well as stricter rules to ensure that those labels actually mean what customers think they mean? Were stuck with basically what we have, which is kind of a free-for-all.

Both sides have a point; both the Cornucopia folks and Cufone want the farmers they represent to be recognized and paid for her dedication to sustainability. How to ensure they both get what they deserve? Theres no real solution. Thats what the NOSB is grappling with. As to when theyll make a decision? Any decision at all? We have no idea.

More here:

Can Hydroponic Farming Be Organic? The Battle Over The Future Of Organic Is Getting Heated - Modern Farmer

The all-organic pop-up shop features organic cotton T-shirts and baby clothes, organic wool sweaters and socks, organic sheets and blankets, even organic mattresses. "Live Organic from Farm to Home" is connecting the dots between that organic T-shirt or sweater and the organic cotton farmer and the organic sheep raiser; between the organic mattress factory or an organic fabric dyeing factory and the downstream impact on our water and soil.

"At Timberland, we hold ourselves accountable for what goes into our products as well as how they're made, and we're constantly seeking innovative solutions to reduce their environmental impact," said Colleen Vien, Sustainability Director for outdoor lifestyle brand Timberland, one of the event's sponsors. "Conventionally grown cotton uses more insecticides and requires significantly more water than organically grown cotton. As such, Timberland has had a longstanding goal of increasing our use of organic cotton year over year."

Kicking off #LiveOrganic was a VIP reception on Thursday evening. Media guests met and mingled with the leaders and pioneers of the organic textile industry, talked with the farmers who are committing their lives to growing organic fiber in the most environmentally sustainable way, and heard the unique stories of each of the sponsoring brands.

"We've worked diligently for 23 years to maintain our integrity as environmental stewards and to educate the consumer on the importance of using U.S. grown organic cotton. You care about what you put into your body you should care about what you put on your body as well," said Jimmy Wedel, an organic cotton farmer from the Texas High Plains and President of the Texas Organic Cotton Marketing Cooperative (TOCMC) in Lubbock, Texas. TOCMC farmer members produce most of the organic cotton grown in this country. Wedel is a third generation farmer who farms over 4,000 areas, almost all certified organic.

Living an organic lifestyle

Today's consumer is embracing an organic food-to-fashion-and-home lifestyle. Organic food is now found in over 80 percent of American kitchens. And the American organic textile market is now a billion-dollar-plus market, posting robust double-digit growth in recent years. Organic fiber is in demand for everything from organic bath towels to baby clothes to high fashion. Consumers are increasingly looking for clean products without toxins, unnecessary ingredients, and which are produced in ways that do not harm the environment.

"Coyuchi knows how important organic fiber and sustainable practices are to our customers, so we've gone one step further," said Eileen Mockus, CEO of Coyuchi organic bedding company. "To extend the longevity of our organic cotton bedding and towels and ensure it won't end up in a landfill, we're created our new circular subscription service which lets you send back your linens and allows us to renew, upcycle, or recycle them."

More than 13 million tons of textiles end up in U.S. landfills, according to findings by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But long before textiles reach the landfill, the production of conventional fiber is compromising the environment. Over thirty eight million pounds of pesticides were used on conventional cotton in 2014 in the U.S., making cotton third in terms of pesticide use after only corn and soybeans, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Sponsors of #LiveOrganic inspired the enthusiastic gathering on Thursday when they shared the mission of their companies and the passion for a clean world that created and continues to create their widening array of products.

"Responsible sourcing through environmentally and socially conscious practices, along with a commitment to transparency and community are important to everyone at Ramblers Way," said Nick Armentrout, Supply Chain Manager for sustainable and organic clothing maker Ramblers Way. "When Ramblers Way sources organic wool, we use the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) to help us assure environmental and social standards are followed from farm to fabric to fashion."

"From the field to your home, the Grund organic cotton bath rugs offer a chemical free option no harmful pesticides and chemicals during production, harvesting and processing," said Michael Twer, Vice President, Sales/General Manager for organic bath maker Grund. "Each rug to towel is responsibly made to the absolute highest social and environmental standards, and the cotton used can be traced to the very community of cultivation."

"Naturepedic mattresses do not contain any polyurethane foam, formaldehyde, pesticides, GMOs, vinyl or any questionable materials," said Chris Robinson, Vice President, Sales & Marketing for Naturepedic organic mattress company. "Our mattresses are made without harmful chemicals of any kind, including flame retardant chemicals, or chemical flame barriers."

While the pop-up focuses on what we put on our body, the dots also connect organic cotton production to healthy organic food. Two-thirds of the harvested organic cotton crop is used in food and cattle feed. Organic cottonseed has been found to be a source of high nutrition, protein and energy in organic animal feed rations, and to boost milk production and butterfat in dairy cows. Cottonseed oil is one of the most widely used cooking oils, and organic cottonseed oil offers consumers the huge benefits of being produced from crops grown without pesticides and chemicals.

"Our company was founded on the belief that organic makes a difference for families, farming communities and the environment," said Mike Ferry, president of Horizon Organic dairy company. "That commitment remains true today, so we are proud to support organic throughout the supply chain, in the dairy industry and beyond, and are happy tosponsor the OTA's first Live Organic from Farm to Home Pop-Up Shop."

A healthier world for all, from farm to home

OTA's Organic Fiber Council was convened in 2015 with the goal to unite the organic fiber sector with a cohesive voice, identify the challenges and opportunities in the organic fiber sector, educate the consumer about the importance of organic fiber, and help move the sector forward.

"OTA and the Organic Fiber Council are thrilled to be telling the story of organic fiber and textiles, and to be showing the public in such a fun and engaging way why it truly makes a difference when you choose organic in every part of your life. And we're honored to be working with these industry pioneers they're creating a healthier world for all of us," said Gwendolyn Wyard, Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs for OTA and staff coordinator for the Organic Fiber Council.

The #LiveOrganic pop-up can be visited on May 5 and 6 from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. at Treehaus MiMA, 470 West 42nd St.

The sponsoring organic fiber brands are Coyuchi, Dhana, Gallant, Grund, MetaWear, Naturepedic, Organic Cotton Plus, prAna, Ramblers Way, Spiritex, Synergy, Syona Home and Timberland. Sponsoring brands, farmers, organizations and retailers are Control Union, Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), Horizon Organic, OneCert, Oregon Tilth, MOM's Organic Market, Organic Valley, Texas Organic Cotton Marketing Cooperative, Textile Exchange, Whole Foods, and the Richard D. Siegel Law Offices.

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is the membership-based business association for organic agriculture and products in North America. OTA is the leading voice for the organic trade in the United States, representing over 9,500 organic businesses across 50 states. Its members include growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers' associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants, retailers and others. OTA's Board of Directors is democratically elected by its members. OTA's mission is to promote and protect ORGANIC with a unifying voice that serves and engages its diverse members from farm to marketplace.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/beyond-food-organic-lifestyle-brands-star-in-pop-up-event-in-new-york-300452068.html

SOURCE Organic Trade Association

http://www.ota.com

Originally posted here:

Beyond food: Organic lifestyle brands star in pop-up event in New York - PR Newswire (press release)

The High Plains dairy complex reflects the new scale of the U.S. organic industry: it is big.

Stretching across miles of pastures and feedlots north of Greeley, Colorado, the complex is home to more than 15,000 cows, making it more than a hundred times the size of a typical organic herd. It is the main facility of Aurora Organic Dairy, a company that produces enough milk to supply the house brands of Walmart, Costco, and other major retailers.

"We take great pride in our commitment to organic, and in our ability to meet the rigorous criteria of the USDA organic regulations," Aurora advertises.

But a closer look at Aurora and other large operations highlights critical weaknesses in the unorthodox inspection system that the USDA uses to ensure that "organic" food is really organic.

The U.S. organic market now counts more than $40 billion in annual sales, and includes products imported from about 100 countries. To enforce the organic rules across this vast industry, the USDA allows farmers to hire and pay their own inspectors to certify them as "USDA Organic." Industry defenders say enforcement is robust.

But the problems at an entity like Aurora suggests that even large, prominent players can fall short of standards without detection.

With milk, the critical issue is grazing. Organic dairies are required to allow the cows to graze daily throughout the growing season - that is, the cows are supposed to be grass-fed, not confined to barns and feed lots. This method is considered more natural and alters the constituents of the cows milk in ways consumers deem beneficial.

But during visits by The Washington Post to Aurora's High Plains complex across nine days last year, signs of grazing were sparse, at best. Aurora said their animals were out on pasture day and night but during most Post visits the number of cows seen on pasture numbered in the hundreds. A high-resolution satellite photo taken in mid-July by Digital Globe, a space imagery vendor, shows a typical situation - only a few hundred on pasture. At no point were there any more than 10 percent of the herd out.

In response, Aurora spokesperson Sonja Tuitele dismissed the Post visits as anomalies and "drive-bys."

The milk produced also provides evidence that Aurora cows do not graze as required by organic rules. Testing conducted for the Post by Virginia Tech scientists shows that on a key indicator of grass-feeding, the Aurora milk matched conventional milk, not organic.

Finally, the Post contacted the inspectors who visited Aurora's High Plains dairy and certified it as "USDA Organic." Did their inspectors have evidence that the Aurora cows met the grazing requirement?

It turns out that they were poorly positioned to know.

The inspectors conducted the annual audit well after grazing season - in November. That means that during the annual audit, inspectors would not have seen whether the cows were grazing as required, a breach of USDA inspection policy.

"We would expect that inspectors are out there during the grazing season," said Miles McEvoy, chief of the National Organic Program at USDA. He said that the grazing requirement is "a critical compliance component of an organic livestock operation."

If organic farms violate organic rules, consumers are being misled and overcharged.

In the case of milk, consumers pay extra - often double - when the carton says "USDA Organic" in the belief they are getting something different. Organic dairy sales amounted to $6 billion last year in the U.S.

The failure to comply with organic standards also harms other farms, many of them small. Following the rules costs extra because grazing requires more land and because cows that dine on grass typically produce less milk.

Whether an organic dairy is grazing its herd is relatively easy to see, especially if roads criss-cross their pastures. It is more difficult, however, for outsiders to judge whether a dairy is following other organic rules - such as those regarding hormones and organic feed.

Ten years ago, after a complaint from a consumer group, Aurora faced USDA allegations that it breached organic rules regarding grazing and other issues. The USDA charged that Aurora was in "willful violation" of organic standards, but a settlement agreement allowed them to continue to operate.

There have been no charges since then.

But some small organic dairy farmers say that the new, large organic dairies that have popped up in the Southwest are violating standards.

On one-day visits to several large organic operations in Texas and New Mexico, a Post reporter saw similarly empty pastures. It was difficult to determine where their milk winds up on retail shelves, however, and so no chemical tests were pursued.

"About half of the organic milk sold in the U.S. is coming from very large factory farms that have no intention of living up to organic principles," said Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit group representing thousand of organic farmers. "Thousands of small organic farmers across the United States depend on the USDA organic system working. Unfortunately, right now, it's not working for small farmers, or for consumers."

Until then, convincing customers that a product was "organic" could be a murky proposition - everyone relied on informal definitions of organic and informal measures of trust.

The "USDA Organic" seal changed that, standardizing concepts and setting rules. It has proven a boon: Organic food sales rose from about $6 billion annually in 2000 to $40 billion in 2015, according to the Organic Trade Association.

The integrity of the new label, however, rested on an unusual system of inspections.

Under organic rules, the USDA typically doesn't inspect farms. Instead, farmers hire their own inspectors from lists of private companies and other organizations licensed by the USDA. An inspector makes an annual visit and it is arranged days or weeks in advance. Only five percent of inspections are expected to be done unannounced.

To keep the inspectors honest, the USDA reviews the records of each inspection outfit about every 2 1/2 years.

This inspection system saves the USDA money because it doesn't have to hire many inspectors. The compliance and enforcement team at the USDA National Organic Program has nine people - one for every $4 billion in sales.

McEvoy acknowledged that having farmers choose their inspection companies is "fairly unique" within the USDA, but he noted that rising sales show that consumers "trust the organic label."

Others have doubts. Cornucopia publishes its own scorecard of organic dairies because, its officials say, the USDA has failed to weed out the bad.

"Consumers look at that cartoon label on organic milk with a happy cow on green pasture with a red barn, but that's not always the reality," said Katherine Paul of the Organic Consumers Association. "What we've said all along is that organic milks are not created equal, and your results show that."

At the other end of the scale from Aurora are many small dairies who have come to rely on the USDA Organic label, investing in the opportunity it respresents, believing in its promise.

Several years ago, for example, Bobby Prigel, a fourth-generation dairyman with a 300-acre spread of rolling pastures and white plank fences in northern Maryland, made the switch.

With milk prices declining and feed costs rising, Prigel figured he had to try something different. The herd had been in the barn area for decades, munching feed. One day he shooed them out to pasture.

Here's the funny thing, he said: his cows seemed confused. Though cows are natural grazers - like the wild aurochs they descended from -the grazing instincts of his cows had been dulled.

"They didn't really know how to graze at first - they didn't know how to bend down and get grass with their tongues," Prigel said one day during a break on his farm. Nor were they accustomed to walking much.

Prigel, meanwhile, had to make economic adjustments.

Producing milk according to the "USDA Organic" standard costs more.

To begin with, organic cows cannot be given hormones to stimulate milk production. And any feed or pasture for the cows must be organic - that is, grown without most synthetic pesticides.

Second, to be considered organic, cows must obtain a certain percentage of their diet from grazing. Prigel is a purist and feeds his herd entirely from the pasture, but most organic dairies supplement the pasture with corn, soybeans or other grains, even during the grazing season.

The grazing requirement makes milk more costly to produce because it requires a certain amount of pasture land and because a grazing cow produces less milk than one eating a grain diet optimized for milk production.

With grass-fed cows, "there's just not nearly as much milk," Prigel said.

On the upside, a farmer can sell certified organic milk for almost double the price of conventional, and there are other benefits, too: The milk is measurably different, and according to the USDA, it improves cow health and reduces the environmental impacts of agriculture. Moreover, because grazing is natural cow behavior, some believe it is more humane.

"Cows aren't supposed to stay inside and eat corn," Prigel said.

The grazing season typically runs from spring until the first frost and to evaluate the Aurora operation, The Post visited the High Plains dairy complex nine days during that period - three in August, three in September and three in October. Roads criss-cross the farm allowing a view of their fields. In addition, in July, a satellite for Digital Globe snapped a high-resolution photo of the area.

Each of those ten days, only a very small portion of the 15,000 cow herd was seen on pastures. Many more were seen in feed lots.

In response, Aurora officials said that during the grazing season the cows are on pasture both day and night. Maybe, they said, on those days, the cows were elsewhere, being milked or otherwise tended.

However, the Post visited at different times of the day, sometimes twice in a day. Because the cows are milked in shifts, thousands of them should be out at any given time, farmers said.

Aurora did say that they stopped their grazing season on September 30, so it's not surprising no cows were seen on the three days in October. It's unclear why Aurora decided to end their grazing season then, though, because the first frost was not until October 20 in that area, according to weather records.

To see whether a lack of grazing was apparent in the milk, the Post turned to Virginia Tech dairy science professor Benjamin Corl, who analyzed eight different milks, some organic, some not, and all bottled during grazing season. He performed the tests without knowing the brand names of the samples.

Grass-fed cows tend to produce milk with elevated levels of two types of fat. One of the distinguishing fats is conjugated linoleic acid or CLA, which some regard as the clearest indicator of grass-feeding. The other is an "Omega-3" fat known as alpha-linolenic acid. Both have been associated with health benefits in humans, although the amounts found in milk are relatively small.

Another type of fat - linoleic acid, an Omega-6 fat - tends to be sparser in milks that are pasture fed.

The results: Prigel's milk stood out for its grassy origins. It ranked at the top for CLA and was a distant last for linoleic acid.

The milk from Snowville Creamery, another brand that boasts of pasture-grazing, ranked second for CLA.

"Those two milks stood out like sore thumbs," said Corl, who "You can tell those animals have been on grass."

At the other extreme were the conventional milks - from 365 and Lucerne. They ranked, as expected, at the bottom for the fats associated with grass feeding and at the top for the fat associated with conventional feeding.

Large organic brands - Horizon and Organic Valley - ranked roughly in between the extremes for two of the three measures.

As for Aurora's milk, despite its the "USDA Organic" label, it was very close to conventional milk. On two of the three measures, CLA and linoleic acid, they were pretty much the same as conventional milk. On the third measure, alpha-linolenic acid, Aurora ranked slightly better than the conventional milks, but below the other USDA organic samples.

The milk tested by the Post had been processed at Aurora's Colorado processing plant, according to the number stamped on the bottle. More than 80 percent of the milk that Aurora sells is produced at its own farms; it also purchases milk from other dairies, according to the company.

It wasn't the first time that Aurora milk has tested poorly for signs of grass feeding. In 2008, the Milkweed, a dairy economics report compared Aurora's milk to other organic milks. Of 10 organic milks ranked for the fats assocated with grass feeding, Aurora's was last.

"There has been an obvious failure by USDA to enforce the organic pasture standard," Pete Hardin, editor and publisher of The Milkweed, said in a recent interview.

Tuitele, the Aurora spokesperson, dismissed the milk tests and declined to comment in depth on them because they were "isolated" and because there are "so many variables that are unknown."

She suggested that Aurora milk may have tested differently, not because of a lack of grazing, but because Colorado pastures may have different plants. But milks from the Rocky Mountain region and those from the Mid-Atlantic vary a little, according to a 2013 study of organic milks published in PlosOne - not enough to explain the gap in the results.

Aurora's inspectors also stood by Aurora's milk.

While most inspectors are private organizations, Aurora hired staff from the Colorado Department of Agriculture, which it pays about $13,000 annually.

When asked about the Aurora inspection being done after grazing season, an official with the Colorado Department of Agriculture initially suggested that other audits may have been conducted at High Plains last year. But Tuitele later wrote that the November visit was the only audit of its High Plains complex last year.

Aurora and their inspectors have been under scrutiny before.

About 10 years ago, the USDA launched an investigation into Aurora's organic practices.

By April 2007, USDA said it identified "willful violations" of organic rules by the dairy. Aurora had, among other things, for three years "failed to provide a total feed ration that included pasture."

The USDA proposed to revoke Aurora's organic status.

It also also proposed to suspend the Colorado Department of Agriculture from certifying organic livestock "due to the nature and extent of these violations."

Four months later, though, the case was resolved.

Aurora pledged to make improvements and was allowed to continue operating. It issued a press release saying that the USDA had "dismissed the complaints...following an extensive review" - a finding contrary to the view at USDA, which issued a press release saying "the complaint was not dismissed." It noted that the consent agreement called for Aurora to "make major changes."

For its part, the Colorado Department of Agriculture agreed "to make several changes in its operation," including hiring more personnel and staff training, according to a USDA press release.

Aurora also settled a related class action lawsuit for $7.5 million in 2012, and said it did not admit wrongdoing.

Since then, Aurora, already gargantuan, has continued to grow. In recent months it has been considering an expansion in Columbia, Mo., that may rely on milk from as many as 30,000 cows, according to local media coverage.

The growth of mega-dairies that skimp on grazing and produce cheap milk appears to be crushing many small dairies, some analysts said.

"The mom and pop - the smaller traditional family dairies - who are following the pasture rules are seeing their prices erode," said Hardin, The Milkweed editor. "It is creating a heck of a mess."

Will Costello contributed to this report.

Read more here:

Why your milk may not be truly organic - The Hendricks County Flyer