Mark A. Kastel | Food Safety News

Critic of Organic Agriculture Lacks Credibility

Mark A. Kastel — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 05:02:17 +0000

Recently, Mr. Mischa Popoff wrote an op-ed for Food Safety News critical of the organic movement. Popoff is a former Canadian organic certification inspection contractor, the author of a self-published book critical of organics, and a commentator affiliated with ultra-conservative think tanks in the U.S. that are funded by agrochemical interests. The article below, entitled, “Who is Mischa Popoff?,” was penned by researchers at The Cornucopia Institute in 2011. It remains accurate and relevant today. When The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group, officially launched in April 2004, one of its primary issue areas was what it referred to as “The Corporate Attack on Organic Agriculture.” At the time, Cornucopia’s focus was on the father-and-son team of Dennis and Alex Avery at the ultra-conservative Hudson Institute’s campaign to discredit organics. Now, in 2011, after seven years of successfully exposing the genesis of Hudson’s ire, and greatly diminishing its effectiveness, a new generation of “Trojan horse” naysayers has emerged. The latest attacks come from Mischa Popoff, a Canadian who purports to be an advocate for organics and is publicizing his self-published book entitled, “Is It Organic? The author misses few opportunities to impugn the integrity of the organic label, or USDA oversight, while simultaneously defending biotechnology and the industrial agriculture system that organics seeks to replace. “Addressing the potential damage from attacks by the Hudson Institute, and other right-wing think tanks such as the Hoover Institution, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was relatively easy,” said Mark A. Kastel, codirector at the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. “Every rebuttal that we published, or preemptive media advisory we issued, was put into context by including the corporate agribusiness funding base for the work of these entities.” Like the Averys, Popoff is a conservative ideologue, a global warming denier, an ardent critic of hybrid automobiles, and has suggested that the American mortgage crisis that precipitated the financial meltdown was caused by “overregulation.” His book sold on his website is subtitled: “The Inside Story of Who Destroyed the Organic Industry, Turned It into a Socialist Movement and Made Million$ in the Process, and a Comprehensive History of Farming, Warfare and Western Civilization from 1645 to the Present.” “Popoff calling the $30-billion organic industry a ‘socialist movement,’” says Cornucopia’s Kastel, “is akin to the fascist leaders in Germany, during the 1920s and ‘30s, referring to their movement as the National Socialist party. It’s Orwellian doublespeak. Nowhere in the food industry have entrepreneurs and investors realized greater financial reward, with virtually no governmental funding, than in meeting the higher standards consumers are seeking by paying a premium for organic food.” Popoff acted as an organic inspector a number of years ago. He now challenges the propriety of organic accreditation and third-party certification by suggesting, echoing the Averys at Hudson, that, “There is currently little proof of actual cleanliness, nutrition and fair play in the global organic industry.” Popoff’s unsubstantiated claim is that 80-90 percent of organic food in North America is fraudulent and imported. That’s not to say that Cornucopia doesn’t share some of Popoff’s concerns. Popoff suggests that the entire certification process is without merit and should be replaced with a testing protocol for prohibited toxic chemicals. “We think there is great merit in doing spot testing, as Congress required, and we have criticized the USDA for not having implemented testing until now, but it would be prohibitively expensive to test all farms and crops and would not substitute for other careful oversight protocols,” said Will Fantle, research director at The Cornucopia Institute. USDA’s National Organic Program, sensitive to the need for spot tests, is currently soliciting public comments on a new federal rule outlining the periodic residue testing of organically produced agricultural products. The proposal calls upon independent organic certifiers to conduct more surprise inspections of organic operations. Cornucopia, in its role as an organic industry watchdog, along with many other organic advocacy groups, supports the proposed new regulation recently published in the Federal Register (available for public comment until June 28). “This is a scheme similar to how the Internal Revenue Service conducts audits,” added Fantle. “Strategically conducted tests, and aggressive prosecution if willful violations are discovered, will surely act as a powerful deterrent. I will add that there is no documentary evidence to believe that widespread fraud is currently occurring in the organic industry.” It appears that Popoff pins his credibility to his role as an insider and organic supporter. But even that is open to debate as he hasn’t actually done any organic inspections in years and has been inappropriately identifying himself as an “International Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA) Advanced Inspector.” The executive director of IOIA, Margaret Scoles, says that she often gets calls and messages from people who are confused by Popoff’s claimed credentials. “A recent message I received was signed, ‘Mischa Popoff, IOIA Advanced Organic Farm and Process Inspector,’” says Scoles. “I was surprised,” she adds. “In 2008, I asked him to discontinue using the term because there is no such thing [Advanced Inspector]. He just made up the title. We asked him not to use the IOIA name in any way to imply membership status with our association, but his continued use of our name on his website and in his emails still causes confusion.” Popoff was an Inspector member of IOIA between 1998 and 2004, Scoles notes. But, she notes, “He has never worked for us and has no affiliation with IOIA.” Popoff’s political ideology comes through strong and clear in some of his writings (click here to view a sampling) and statements; his other website also exposes ultra-conservative views. In addition to his suggesting that organics is some kind of socialist construct, he has stated that, “Liberals destroy agriculture in B.C. [British Columbia]” and suggested that the liberal American financier George Soros is somehow financing an organic “bureaucracy” instead of substantive oversight. “Mr. Popoff’s contention that the organic industry has some kind of socialist/liberal agenda is a gross misnomer,” stated Kastel. “Support for organics cuts across all demographics with liberal and conservative suburban consumers, urbanites and rural farmers ranging from dreadlocked hippies to conservative Christians, Mennonites and the Amish.” Like the Averys at the Hudson Institute, he’s also attacked The Cornucopia Institute, suggesting that they have partnered with Soros and claiming that the organization’s largest funder is the farmer-owned cooperative Organic Valley (another one of Popoff’s targets in his book). “Because Organic Valley CEO George Siemon doesn’t back his thesis to switch all organic oversight exclusively to testing, he attacked Siemon and now is going after Cornucopia,” said Kastel. “Interestingly, Popoff has also promoted a testing business that would directly benefit from this recommended approach.” Kastel and Siemon are in good company. Popoff’s book also attacks Deputy USDA Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, a well-known organic supporter, and Michael Pollan, a New York Times journalist and author of the bestseller “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.” “By trying to tie all of his favorite villains together, Mr. Popoff discredits himself and leaves all of his statements open to question,” noted Kastel. “Not only is Organic Valley not our largest funder, we do not receive any financial support from the cooperative, or from Mr. Soros, and fully stand by our independence as an organic industry watchdog,” Fantle affirmed. Almost no element in the organic farming movement has been spared attacks on its credibility by Popoff. One of the certifiers impugned, OCIA International, responded to what they referred to as “false statements about our organization and organic certification in general.” “We would like to set the record straight. On a YouTube video, Mr. Popoff states that there are no unannounced inspections performed on certified organic farms. This is untrue and is covered in the NOP Final Rule and also in the OCIA Standards.” The USDA organic regulatory language includes: Additional inspections may be announced or unannounced at the discretion of the certifying agent or as required by the Administrator or State organic program’s governing State official. And the contract OCIA, one of the original nonprofit certifiers predating the USDA, has with its farmers and processors reads: The inspector shall have the right to make unannounced visits, take samples, and require residue tests. “We take our responsibility to follow up on any questionable activities in organics very seriously,” said OCIA President Peggy Linzmeier. “Mr. Popoff’s fictitious stories, challenging the credibility of the organic label, are injurious to all the farmers and organizations in this industry that are acting with high integrity.” Although his material has primarily appeared on what has been referred to as the “echo chamber” of conservative websites, Popoff has developed an extensive database of e-mail addresses in the organic industry. “Either he’s had tremendous financial support in his data mining efforts or he’s personally invested countless hours in developing this electronic mailing list,” stated Fantle. “If it weren’t for this level of outreach, we would probably entirely ignore his rantings, which all too often grossly distort the facts.” Research indicating organics’ nutritional superiority and demonstrably lower level of exposure to agrichemicals, antibiotics and hormones, can be found on Cornucopia’s website or that of the Organic Center. “Whether it is research conducted by the USDA, Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine), or numerous peer-reviewed journals, there is considerable scientific backup for the faith consumers have in the ethical approach organic farmers have taken,” added Kastel. “Mr. Popoff’s claims to the contrary just don’t hold water.”

Organic vs. Conventional: Pundits Are Welcome to Their Own Opinion, But Not Their Own Facts

Mark A. Kastel — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 07:35:07 +0000

Because Food Safety News holds an important perspective in the industry, I was surprised to see the website publish a commentary by Mr. Mischa Popoff. Mr. Popoff has spent the last few years promoting his self-published book, Is It Organic. He has made irresponsible and unsupported claims that 80 percent of all organic food in North America is imported and riddled with fraud — a grave disservice to the hard-working organic farmers in this country and their loyal customers. The subtitle of his book says it all: The Inside Story of Who Destroyed the Organic Industry, Turned It into a Socialist Movement and Made Million$ in the Process, and a Comprehensive History of Farming, Warfare and Western Civilization from 1645 to the Present. Whoa Nelly! If you connect the dots, by looking at the other issues that Mr. Popoff writes about, and commonly published on ultraconservative websites (challenging climate change, defending genetically engineered food production, challenging the efficacy of hybrid automobiles and even parenting issues) you would have to conclude that organic food is a component of some kind of Bolshevik plot to take over this country. He joins the father and son team of Dennis and Alex Avery, of the Hudson Institute, in taking every opportunity to denigrate the reputation of organics. Many of the think tanks that support the Averys, and now Popoff, have received funding from Monsanto, DuPont and other interests in the agrochemical and biotechnology industries. Companies that produce farm chemicals and genetically engineered seed quite rightfully might be concerned by the growing competition stemming from the shift to eating organically by consumers. I encourage you to read The Cornucopia Institute’s backgrounder, Who Is Misha Popoff. Popoff has had almost no exposure in the mainstream media here in the U.S., so it is disturbing to find his byline on Food Safety News. There is no factual basis for his thesis, articulated in his op-ed, that somehow organic food is more dangerous than conventional food and that the basis of the problem is the lack of testing for pathogenic contamination. It is incumbent on all farmers and food producers to follow basic food safety protocols. The organic law prescribes a set of standards for farmers and food processors. Organic production is subject to the same regulatory protocols prescribed by the USDA and FDA and any applicable state and local laws. In addition, Popoff’s essay includes the following inaccurate and misleading information: 1. His claim that, “over 25 years of research has failed to find any harm from GM technology,” is patently false. There’s been virtually no human health testing (not required by the federal government) and there have been almost no lifetime trials on laboratory animals (just short term studies). Furthermore, there is a growing body of peer-reviewed, published scientific literature pointing to some significant abnormalities in laboratory animals and livestock being fed genetically modified feed. Consumers choosing to eat organically are exercising caution by operating under the “Precautionary Principle.” 2. He suggests that any organic food contaminated with pathogens should not be allowed to be certified as organic. This is a specious argument because any food, organic or conventional, contaminated with dangerous pathogens should not be marketed for human consumption, period. 3. He uses the example of a prior outbreak of contaminated bean sprouts in Europe as a model of organic production protocols run amok. And he suggests that contaminated water might have been a factor. However, producing bean sprouts is a high risk enterprise, be they organic or conventional, and using tested, potable water is universally a regulatory requirement.Most problems with contaminated bean sprouts, as the example he cited in Germany, are thought to emanate from contaminated seed which, again, is a hazard for organic and conventional production alike. There is nothing inherently more dangerous about organic bean sprouts than conventional. 4. His claim that organic food consumption in the United States is about 1 percent of the market is inaccurate. I have seen authoritative reports pegging it at 3 to 4 percent with some commodities, like organic milk, being at about 6 percent, and fruits and vegetables significantly higher than that. These numbers are based on market studies by the USDA, the Organic Trade Association and published by respected trade journals in the produce industry. 5. He suggests that the director of the USDA’s National Organic Program, Miles McEvoy, took it upon himself to institute random testing for agrochemical contamination in organics. The truth is that this testing requirement was part of the Organic Foods Production Act passed by Congress. Pressure from The Cornucopia Institute, Consumers Union and other advocacy groups prompted an investigation by the USDA’s Office of Inspector General as to why testing had not been implemented as required by law. 6. The cost of testing, sample collection and transportation requirements (sometimes refrigerated) for chemical residues and pathogens, as suggested by Mr. Popoff, on 100 percent of organic operations, would greatly increase the cost of organic food. Cornucopia supports the 5 percent , annual, random testing requirement. At this rate, the USDA will conduct over five times as many audits as the IRS currently conducts. It is a prudent adjunct to the established rigorous annual inspection of both organic farms and facilities and all documents pertaining to organic management. In closing, the fundamental precept of Mr. Popoff’s attempt to challenge the credibility of organic food production is flawed. Organic food is subject to the same standards of cleanliness, and regulatory safeguards, as any other food in the market, imported or domestic. There is a history of inexcusable neglect during this presidential administration and prior administrations in the execution of food safety laws to protect U.S. citizens. And Congress has been grossly remiss in failing to adequately fund the infrastructure and inspectors in the field, especially in scrutinizing imported food. We should demand excellence from our government in this regard and we certainly are not getting it. Again, we respect the important journalism being done at Food Safety News, in putting pressure on the food industry and government to, literally, clean up its act. Publishing Mr. Popoff’s opinion piece was an unfortunate aberration.

The Food Safety Shell Game

Mark A. Kastel — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:59:04 +0000

What isn’t being discussed in Congress, during the ongoing debate on the broken federal food safety system, is the root cause of the most serious pathogenic outbreaks in our food–the elephant (poop) in the room.

The relatively new phenomena of nationwide pathogenic outbreaks, be they from Salmonella or E. coli variants, are intimately tied to the fecal contamination of our food supply and the intermingling of millions of unhealthy animals. It’s one of the best kept secrets in the modern livestock industry.

Mountains of manure are piling up at our nation’s mammoth industrial scale “factory farms.” Thousands of dairy cows and tens of thousands of beef cattle are concentrated on feedlots; hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of chickens are confined in henhouses at one location for the production of eggs and meat.

Livestock producing manure is nothing new. But the epic scale of animal numbers at single locations and the incredible volumes of animal waste is a recipe for disaster. It eclipses anything that was happening on old McDonald’s farm.

Feces carrying infectious bacteria transfer to the environment and into our food supply. Feeding heavily subsidized corn and soybeans to cattle, instead of grazing the ruminants on grass–as they were genetically designed to do–changes the pH in their digestive tracts, creating a hospitable environment for pathogenic E. coli to breed. The new phenomenon of feeding “distillers grains” (a byproduct of the ethanol refining industry) is making this risk even more grave.

The current near-nationwide contamination in the egg supply can be directly linked to industrial producers that confine millions of birds, a product of massive, centralized breeding, in manure-rich henhouses, and feeding the birds a ration spiked with antibiotics. These are chickens that the McDonald family would likely have slaughtered on the farm because they were “sickly.”

Thirteen corporations each have more than 5 million laying hens, and 192 companies have flocks of more than 75,000 birds. According to the industry lobby group, United Egg Producers (UEP), this represents 95 percent of all the laying hens in the United States. UEP also says, “eggs on commercial egg-laying farms are never touched until they are handled by the food service operator or consumer.” Obviously, their approach has been ineffective and their smokescreen is not the straight poop.

In addition to our national dependence on factory farms, the meatpacking industry, like egg production, has consolidated to more easily service the vast numbers of animals sent to slaughter from fewer locations. Just four companies now control over 80 percent of the country’s beef slaughter. Production line speed-ups have made it even harder to keep intestinal contents from landing in hamburger and meat on cutting tables.

All of these problems are further amplified by the scope of the industrial-scale food system. Now, a single contamination problem at a single national processing facility, be it meat, eggs, spinach, or peanut butter, can virtually infect the entire country through their national distribution model.

As an antidote, consumers are voting with their pocketbooks by purchasing food they can trust. They are encouraging a shift back towards a more decentralized, local, and organic livestock production model. Witnessing the exponential growth of farmers markets, community-supported farms, direct marketing, and supermarket organics, a percentage of our population is not waiting for government regulation to protect their families.

The irony of the current debate on improving our federal food safety regulatory infrastructure, now centered in the Senate, is that at the same time the erosion of FDA/USDA oversight justifies aggressive legislation, the safest farmers in this country, local and organic, might be snared in the dragnet–the proposed rules could disproportionally escalate their costs and drive some out of business.

While many in the good food movement have voiced strong concerns about the pending legislation–it’s sorely needed–corporate agribusiness, in pursuit of profit, is poisoning our children!

When Congress returns to Washington, we have no doubt that food safety legislation, which has languished for months, will get fast-tracked. In an election year our politicians don’t want to be left with egg on their faces.

We only hope that Senators will seriously consider not just passing comprehensive reform but incorporating an amendment sponsored by John Tester (D-MT), a certified organic farmer himself, that will exempt the safest farms in our country–small, local direct marketers. We need to allocate our scarce, limited resources based on greatest risk.

Farmers and ranchers milking 60 cows, raising a few hundred head of beef, or free ranging laying hens (many times these animals have names not numbers), offer the only true competition to corporate agribusinesses that dominate our food production system.