FreeRangeClub Editor Corrects
“Is It Organic?” Author’s Perception of Flaws in Organic Food Industry
Our Catharine “The Kitchen Shrink” Kaufman recently received the following comment from Mischa Popoff in Osoyoos BC Canada , under the heading of “The inside story of the organic industry.”
Mr. Popoff’s e-mail was forwarded to me for reply—mostly because researching all things pertaining to organic foods, from production to consumption, has been my task since FRC first hit the Web. Far from claiming expertise—the topic is too vast and changeable—I merely admit to passionate interest in factual information that leads to safe foods and healthy nutrition.
We decided to share this exchange to answer some questions and perhaps come up with new ones. Hope you won’t hesitate to chime—opinions, conclusions, different information are all welcome. Post your comments, corrections, critiques, messages and contributions to this discussion directly on this site or e-mail them to me at FreeRangeClub.
E-mail from Mr. Mischa Popoff to The Kitchen Shrink:
Dear Catharine,
To listen to some media outlets you’d think the multi-billion-dollar organic industry was infallible. I’m trusting you’ll be a bit more objective.
As you may already know, I worked for five years in the United States and Canada as an organic inspector. I believe fervently in the principles of organic farming but maintain that we have to prove those principles instead of operating on the politicized, bureaucratic honor system that’s been the organic industry’s mainstay for the last decade.
Here are three recent stories, which I believe demonstrate where the organic industry has gone terribly wrong:
1. An “organic” spinach farm near San Diego who’s been infesting the surrounding community with deadly eye-gnats for a decade now.
2. An “organic” miller in Quebec, Canada, who lost his certification back in July but the Feds still won’t say why and are allowing this guy to sell his remaining inventory. This miller was certified by an Argentine-based certifier even though it was a Canadian-based business, and the Feds were okay with that.
3. Last but certainly not least, the story of 44 deaths and over 3,700 illnesses caused by an E. coli outbreak on an “organic” farm in Germany.
In all three cases, the complete lack of science in the organic industry is at the root of the problem. And yet, the most influential people in the organic industry are unwilling to allow organic crops and livestock to be tested to ensure they’re actually purer, more nutritious and safe, as claimed in multi-million-dollar advertising campaigns.
If this strikes you as odd, please drop me a line. I’m here to help. My critically acclaimed work on the organic industry should be a part of your next story on organic food production.
Mischa Popoff
Author of Is it Organic?The inside story of the organic industry
Some people won’t like this book, but you will.
Osoyoos BC Canada
FRC Editor in Chief Dina Eliash Robinson replies:
Dear Mischa Popoff,
Thank you for contributing your remarks to the growing store of information and opinions about organic farming and the role of organic foods in nutrition and health. Since I do most of the research on organics, our FreeRangeClub columnist and blog partner, Catharine Kaufman–a.k.a. The Kitchen Shrink (who, by the way, is a Canadian-American)—asked me to reply to your (above) comments and questions.
While human imperfections are sometimes reflected in the mistakes we make in the enterprises we undertake, it is important to get all the facts before we condemn or criticize. As someone who claims a first-hand knowledge of the organic food industry, you must be are aware that on the whole, its record has been overwhelmingly positive.
Answer to your Point #1. I am well aware of the eye-gnat infestation that had occurred some time ago at a San Diego-area organic farm. It was the natural consequence of the farm’s chemical-free environment–i.e. bugs live and multiply more vigorously in the absence of pesticides, unless their populations are kept in check by other means. Which that farm eventually did quite successfully when it responded to the problem by planting a barrier of bushes and trees around its fields, which protected nearby communities from the natural manure odors that may have attracted the gnats, by increasing the use of benign, pest-eating insects that helped reduce their population and other steps. There is no disputing that the use of compost and animal manure in organic agriculture can be smelly and attractive to unpleasant bugs. The alternative, however–i.e. chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, etc.–are toxic to consumers and the environment. Happily, this organic farm was able to mitigate the problem by means which the surrounding communities have found to be acceptable tradeoffs.
Answer to your Point #2. I am not familiar with the organic miller in Quebec, but it sounds like a case of cross-contamination, which sometimes occurs when equipment reserved for organic products—in this case grains—is used by mistake in the milling of non-organic grains. Since the latter are usually loaded with chemicals or genetically engineered–both of which are toxic–such a mistake can result in the mill’s de-certification. I only hope that by showing leniency to avoid serious economic damage to the miller, if or when they allowed him to sell his remaining inventory, the Feds acted in a humane way–although I do hope they ordered the miller to mark the contaminated grains clearly as ‘Conventional,’ to make sure no one mistakes them for ‘Organic.’
That the Canadian miller was certified by an Argentine-based certifier is a common practice these days and due to the enormous amounts and varieties of foods being traded among countries around the globe. How else would U.S. consumers be pampered with year-round offerings of out-of-season produce (some of it marked ‘organic’) imported from Chile, Mexico, China, etc.? While foreign organic certification is legal and prevalent, we at FreeRangeClub recommend buying and eating in-season, locally grown and certified organic foods whenever they are available. (The ‘in-season’ applies, of course, to plant food, but the ‘locally produced organic’ also extends to livestock.)
Answer to your Point #3. Organic farms all over the world have problems with e-coli, listeria and other harmful bacteria and viruses that cause outbreaks and even deaths when a contaminated cow or other livestock strays into the fields, or when inadvertently contaminated irrigation water or the wind carries the germs and deposits them on the soil or produce. It is impossible to prevent such things in all cases–as the death toll caused recently by the Colorado-grown organic cantaloupes shows. If anything, the situation is worse in the meat and poultry industry, in which the recall of huge amounts of contaminated lots are quite frequent. (We regularly post the FDA’s recall alerts in our “Food Safety” section.)
(Following the FreeRangeClub tips on proper kitchen hygiene and cooking practices can prevent most food-borne illnesses, but unfortunately, as far as we know, not even thorough washing of foods eaten raw–such as cantaloupes and salad greens–can protect consumers from harm. We are, however, researching and experimenting with recipes that might reduce the danger of food poisoning. Stay tuned.)
Now let me add a few points of my own:
A. It is a big mistake to accuse organic farming of being unscientific–on the contrary, no farmers are better informed about, and more responsive to the latest (well-tested and proven) scientific advances in safe and healthy soil treatment, planting systems and growing methods than those engaged in the difficult, back-breaking and often low-profit organic farming industry.
B. After exhaustive research, I have not been able to find any solid evidence to confirm your contention that “influential people (?) in the organic industry are unwilling to allow organic crops and livestock to be tested to ensure they’re actually purer, more nutritious and safe…” On the contrary, there are countless studies that have clearly shown the many advantages of organic products–including the absence of cancer-causing chemicals, higher nutritional levels (mostly due to healthier soil), etc.
C. Nor have I found any proof or even hint of “multi-million-dollar advertising campaigns.” Please compare the enormous amounts of advertising money spent by the conventionally produced food industry (including junk food) to the advertising funds (if any) spent by the organic food industry–you’ll find the latter minuscule by comparison… an elephant next to a gnat.
Please forgive my bluntness, but it seems to me that these charges were selected and taken out of context to support your exposé of the organic food industry (see above notation: “Author of Is it Organic? The inside story of the organic industry.”)
If the above project was not what motivated your comments, I do apologize for misunderstanding your intention. While it is important and helpful to point out mistakes or bad actors wherever they appear–including the organic food industry–taking statements out of context (i.e. not telling the whole story) and thus giving a false impression of what is really going on, are all in all, unhelpful to public health, the environment, human lifestyle and sustainable food production.
Hope the above information answers your questions–but please feel free to argue any point on which you have refuting evidence. Since FreeRangeClub was created and is dedicated to provide thoroughly researched and meticulously fact-checked information about optimum nutrition, healthy gourmet cooking and food safety, we not only welcome, but are grateful for any corrections and critiques that help us improve our content, so we can best serve our readers.
IMPORTANT REQUEST: Should you want to use or refer in any way or in any medium to my above reply that follows your e-mail to Catharine, we, the publishers of FreeRangeClub.Com request that the former be printed, copied or referred to in its entirety, in order to prevent any of the information from being quoted or taken out of context.
Thank you again for following us and commenting on our content.
Sincerely,
Dina Eliash Robinson, Editor in Chief FreeRangeClub.Com
NOTE: 
The low-cal monkeys’ aging process was markedly slower and their mortality rate 37 percent less than those of the control group. The former also suffered less than half of the diseases (i.e. cancer, heart afflictions), age-related brain-shrinkage and loss of muscle tissue than the primates who ate larger quantities of food.
