Members of the sustainable food movement are furious and, frankly, we have a right to be. Last month’s decision by the USDA to fully deregulate GE alfalfa isn’t just a minor skirmish in a long and exhausting battle. It threatens the existence of organic farming and organic food, and flies in the face of USDA’s mandate from Congress under the Organic Foods Production Act to promote and preserve organic agriculture.

The biotech industry loves to talk about how safe and beneficial GE technology is, and regardless of where your opinion lands on those claims, the simple fact is this: GE is not allowed in USDA organic certification. Period. GE contamination of conventional and organic crops is not a myth. It’s a fact. Just look at the gene flow contamination of corn and soy. Deregulating yet another crop, particularly one that could have an enormous impact on organic dairy farming, undermines the future of organics. “Contamination of organic and traditional crops by recently deregulated, genetically modified alfalfa is inevitable,” the Associated Press reported Monday, citing mainstream agricultural experts.

But organic agriculture not only has a right under Congressional mandate to exist, it has earned the right to thrive. Organic is the fastest growing segment of agriculture in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of consumers have voiced their feelings about organics and GE contamination. I’d love for someone to point me toward a compilation of U.S. consumers clamoring for GE food. We’ve certainly heard resistance from consumers in our foreign markets around the world.

Tensions following USDA’s action have run high as members of the organic industry reacted to the news. Now, sustainable agriculture advocates including National Cooperative Grocers Association, Organic Valley, Stonyfield, and organic champion Maria Rodale are calling for organizations to “stand together in opposition to GE alfalfa.” As we regroup and redouble our efforts to protect organic agriculture, these unifying messages are more important than ever. The USDA’s decision last week was a tremendous setback, but the fight is far from over.

In order to preserve organics, the sustainable food movement must unite. Here’s what each of us should do today to take action on this issue:

1. Let the White House know that organic food has a right to exist and thrive, and that you do not support the deregulation of GE alfalfa or any crop, by signing this petition.
2. Support organizations like the Center for Food Safety (CFS) as they raise funds for legal action against the USDA’s deregulation of GE alfalfa. CFS and others have legal grounds to contest the USDA’s Environmental Impact Statement assessment as being incomplete. While Monsanto has billions in lobbying funds, the sustainable food movement has legal precedent on its side. Let’s support groups who aim to take the USDA to court. You can also sign up to receive CFS action alerts here.
3. Continue to support the farms and processors that bring us organics. Although growing, organic is still a small part of the agricultural industry. By increasing our market power, we can have a greater impact in Washington and throughout the nation. Let’s vote with our dollars.
4. Continue to demand that the USDA and Congress protect farmers and consumers from the risks of GE crops, products, and ingredients. Farmers have the right to use organic farming methods and should be protected from losses due to GE contamination. GE-free seed programs must be developed. Long-term research on the implications of GE crops must be conducted. Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, and to make informed decisions about what they choose to eat. These fundamental principles are part of a seven-point plan National Organic Coalition created to provide clarity and focus for the organic movement on this issue.

By uniting around common goals, the sustainable food movement has established an organic standard with high integrity; one that includes certification, accreditation, and consumer labeling. We must continue fighting for organic protections. We must demand that our government recognize organic’s right to exist and thrive.

National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA), representing 114 natural food co-ops, believes all people deserve access to and education about healthy and nutritious foods. We applaud the Women, Infants, Children Program (WIC) for its dedication to this same mission. However, we believe the federal government should follow Senator Blanche Lincoln’s example and move forward quickly with WIC, as well as allow for the purchase of healthy organic and natural foods under the WIC program.

WIC provides assistance to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.

Food co-ops have long been leaders in providing healthy, natural and organic food to the communities in which they operate. Concern for community is one of the principles on which co-ops are based and is something NCGA co-ops take seriously in the food they stock in their stores and in their extensive outreach, education and giving programs. Yet, because of state and federal government restrictions, co-ops are limited in our basic ability to serve WIC grocery shoppers.

WIC provides federal grants to states allowing the distribution of supplemental foods, health care referrals and nutrition education. Currently, each state creates approved lists of foods, typically determined by brand name, that meet predetermined nutritional, pricing and quality criteria. However, many states include explicit prohibitions on access to organic foods within the WIC approved food list used to guide WIC recipients in their food purchases.

States often suggest cost keeps organic off the WIC list. Organic food is free of herbicides and pesticides and synthetic hormones, and is certified as such by the USDA. Farmers and food providers produce it with environmental sustainability in mind, hence the slightly higher prices. Nevertheless, many nursing and health and environmentally conscious moms want that healthier option for their children – and many co-ops and other organic food retailers are willing to discuss price accommodations with WIC customers, if state governments provided that flexibility.

The U.S. Senate has unanimously passed the bill, but the House must act now before the existing law expires on Thurs, September 30. We must give WIC recipients equal access to healthy foods. The opportunity exists within the pending reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act – which appropriates WIC’s funds – to make it so.

On Aug. 6, shortly after Senate bill sponsor Sen. Lincoln asked the Senate “Is it too much to ask” Congress to act on the Senate version of Child Nutrition Reauthorization before taking a long August recess, the body obliged in passing with a Unanimous Consent measure. The stalled House version – while similar in ambition and with innovative farm to school language – does not mention organics in WIC.

That puts the issue back into consumer hands. Citizens still can write or call their representatives to ask that the Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill urge the inclusion of organics within the WIC program.

Photo: Beth Rankin

Our food system is seriously broken in places, and at first glance, many elements of the FSEA are hard to argue with.  For example, the bill would provide the FDA with mandatory recall authority, allow for more frequent inspections and institute traceability requirements so that the source of tainted foods can be more easily tracked. These measures might have helped lessen the impact of recent cases like Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), in which salmonella contamination sickened close to 700 people and caused 10 deaths (although it should be noted that the bill does not require microbial testing for pathogens).

While there are glaring inspection, reporting and accountability problems that need to be firmly addressed, traceability alone will not necessarily protect consumers. In fact, the PCA case exemplifies one of the primary failings of our food system: centralization in which a single entity can sicken so many people so geographically dispersed so quickly. In most of the recent food scares, centralized processing and distribution have been found to be the source of the problem, not growing and harvesting.

Reforming our food system means creating systems that support decentralized food processing and distribution, as well as sustainable production methods like organic and regional and local food.

Michael Pollan eloquently stated the need for decentralization or re-regionalization of our food system in his October 12, 2008 New York Times Magazine letter to, then, President-Elect Obama:

“A decentralized food system offers a great many…benefits… Food eaten closer to where it is grown will be fresher and require less processing, making it more nutritious. Whatever may be lost in efficiency by localizing food production is gained in resilience: regional food systems can better withstand all kinds of shocks. When a single factory is grinding 20 million hamburger patties in a week or washing 25 million servings of salad, a single terrorist armed with a canister of toxins can, at a stroke, poison millions. Such a system is equally susceptible to accidental contamination: the bigger and more global the trade in food, the more vulnerable the system is to catastrophe. The best way to protect our food system against such threats is obvious: decentralize it.”

Consumers are already seeking stronger connection to their food. The increased number of farmers’ markets and CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) points to the renewed interest and value consumers place on buying fresh, local food directly from the producer. There is an implicit accountability for food safety in these direct transactions. 

While buying food directly is not feasible on a day-to-day basis for most consumers, they still deserve the same level of accountability for food safety. Small farmers and producers that sell to food cooperatives and other grocers have demonstrated such accountability. That is not to say that no regulation is needed for small farmers and producers, but rather the larger focus of regulation should be directed towards the biggest problem areas that have the widest reach.

In addition to helping foster local and regional food systems, regulation should also support the environmental and health benefits of sustainable and organic food systems and the benefits of biodiversity, which Pollan alluded to above.

Government regulations and requirements tend to be scaled to the largest farmers and producers.  In many cases, the fees and purchases required for compliance are prohibitive for small operators—many of whom implement practices superior to those required by the FDA—and threaten to put them out of business. Our systems need to support the small family farmers and producers who are already doing the right thing. Our approaches need to be scale neutral or at least scale appropriate, and promote biodiversity.

Consumers have the right to safe food.  We need a system that minimizes risks and maintains public confidence in our food supply.  And we need to make sure that whatever regulations we put in place are enforceable with appropriate resources allocated towards this end.  But, let’s be sure that the regulations we adopt focus on our biggest food safety problems and help foster, or at least do no harm, to the many good practices that exist in our food production system.