We’re midway through Organic Harvest Month, and the Whole Story editors asked me for a few of my personal favorite reasons to buy organic food and support organic agriculture. I work nearly constantly on organic standards, certification and advocacy, and the many, many reasons for growing food as naturally as possible are very close to my heart.

There are almost as many reasons to choose organic food as there are people who choose it, spanning from environmental benefits to avoiding pesticide residues to amazing flavor to certain nutritional advantages.  In the interest of space I’ll focus on a few of the most important benefits, and exactly what we know “organic” means in the grocery store.

Since 2002, the USDA’s National Organic Standards have served as the Federal regulation that governs what foods can be sold as organic. This standard is managed by the National Organic Program, which is advised by National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a 15-member board made up of organic stakeholders including farmers, ranchers, researchers, environmentalists and retailers. I serve as the retail representative on that board through 2015.

Read the rest of this entry »

While October is Non-GMO Month, today, 10-10-10, is Non-GMO Day! What are you doing to celebrate? Here are some ideas:

Read on for a chance to win a case of Nature’s Path Organic Granola Bars for telling us what you think about GMOs.

Get Up to Speed…
…on the basic scoop about GMOs. Genetically modified organisms — also called genetically engineered organisms — are plants or animals where portions of the DNA from one organism are introduced into and made part of the DNA of another. There are a number of GMO crops currently grown in the U.S., including soy, corn, cotton, sugar beets and canola. GMO crops grown today may be insect-resistant (they grow their own insecticides) or herbicide-resistant (they withstand spraying by commercial herbicides). Know this already? Go to the head of the class! Better yet, go to the Non-GMO Project website to learn more. Read the rest of this entry »

October 2010 is our first (and hopefully annual) Non-GMO Month, an event that introduces and celebrates the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal, a first-of-its-kind certification program that Whole Foods Market fully supports. The appearance of this seal marks a major milestone in the course of many years of hard work for those of us in the natural and organic industry.

I’ve written about the Non-GMO Project on this blog once before, when we announced our strong support of the initiative and its seal. Now I’m extremely happy to announce that the actual seal is on actual products in many aisles of our stores! Read the rest of this entry »

When it comes to food, the definition of “organic” is extremely clear, thanks to the USDA’s National Organic Program standards, the Federal regulation that defines just how organic food is grown, raised, processed and sold. When it comes to shampoo, soap and make-up, however, the definitions are not so clear, since the USDA doesn’t have the same control over personal care products as it does over food. While many personal care products are certified under the USDA standards and many display the USDA Organic Seal, the USDA doesn’t currently have the authority to police organic claims on personal care products that aren’t certified. In other words, any food with “organic” on the label is subject to strict standards and enforcement by the Federal government, but personal care products are not.

In our own stores, however, we’ve taken a giant leap toward ensuring our shoppers that the word “organic” has the same strong meaning in every department of the store. Last week, we announced that as of June 1, 2011, all organic personal care products sold in our U.S. stores will have to be certified organic. These guidelines will require quite a few of our suppliers to become certified, change their labels, reformulate their products and take other measures to comply with our guidelines. We’re taking this huge step, and asking our suppliers to make these changes, because we believe very strongly that the meaning of the word “organic” shouldn’t change as you walk around the store. In the grocery aisles, an “organic” product is made of at least 95% organic agricultural materials grown using earth-friendly practices without toxic or persistent pesticides (and the remaining 5% can only contain carefully vetted substances from a short list of approved additives). Now, the word “organic” in our body care departments will signify that same set of ideals.

Here’s our guidelines in a nutshell:

• Products claiming to be “organic” – e.g. “Organic Shampoo” – must be certified to the USDA NOP standard, the same standard to which organic foods must be certified. This standard requires 95% organic ingredients and places strict restrictions on the substances that can be used in the remaining 5%.
• Products claiming to be “made with organic _____” – e.g. “Made with organic essential oils and extracts” – must be certified to the USDA NOP “made with organic” standard, which requires at least 70% organic ingredients and places strict restrictions on the substances that can be used in the remaining 30%.
• Products making the claim “contains organic _____” – e.g “Contains organic rosemary, clove and thyme oils” – must be certified to the NSF 305 Personal Care Standard. This consensus-based standard requires at least 70% organic ingredients, and like the USDA NOP standard, places strict restrictions on the substances that can be used in the remaining 30%. However, this standard allows for a small number of substances and processes that are not allowed in the USDA standard for food (since the standard as it exists now is aimed at food, not personal care), that have been carefully reviewed by the NSF International Joint Committee on Organic Personal Care (of which I’m a member), which is made up of manufacturers, retailers, regulators, certifiers, consumer groups and others stakeholders.

We’ve been very frustrated by years of confusion and misunderstanding in the marketplace about just what “organic” means in the body care aisles. We’ve seen all sorts of products with varying levels of organic content that claim to be organic, and it’s time to level the playing field. With this announcement, we’re ensuring that the organic label retains its strong meaning, and that organic personal care manufacturers have to go through the same level of oversight and practice the same level of integrity as food makers currently do. This will make it easier for shoppers to trust the organic label in our stores, and help the organic personal care products market evolve and grow.

Our hope is that someday the USDA will regulate organic personal care products just as it does food. In our testimony before the National Organic Standards Board last November, we expressed our strong support of the Board’s recommendation that the USDA regulate personal care products, and we commented that:

We and our shoppers expect a consistent definition of “organic” throughout the store, and the jurisdictional borders between Federal agencies should not ultimately derail this goal. The consistent regulation of the “organic” label across all product categories will increase consumer confidence, improve integrity, curtail deceptive labeling claims, and substantially increase the use of USDA Organic agricultural ingredients in personal care products.

In January, the FDA indicated that it was considering the issue, and in April, the USDA announced that it was pursuing discussions with the FDA. We are closely following the government’s work on this issue, and will continue to offer our perspective and guidance. We hope that the agencies work quickly to come up with a solution to this problem, but in the absence of government regulation, our new guidelines will ensure that our shoppers can trust the organic label no matter what department they’re shopping in.

Every single bite of food we take has deep agricultural, environmental and nutritional significance. The bowl of cereal I’m eating right now contains corn (which might be organically grown or not, genetically modified or not) and is bathed in milk (which might be organic or not, from cows given synthetic growth hormones or not, or it could be soy milk — GMO or not, organic or not, and let’s not even get into almond, hemp or rice milks). That yellow color could be natural or not, and the whole box could be preserved with synthetic preservatives to make its shelf life virtually infinite. This is a very simple meal (eight ingredients), and a relatively minor one in the grand scheme of my day, but the choices I’ve made with this little meal have touched at least half a dozen different crops, some cows, growers and my own health.

The relationship between a meal and the rest of the universe is complicated and gets more so when we start talking about meat, seafood and products imported from other countries. My point here is that what seems to be a tiny choice (what to eat for breakfast) can actually have deep significance when we consider the collective impact of the 1100 or so meals we each eat every year.

The incredible growth of the natural and organic food industry over the past 30 years has been driven by individual food choices made about specific meals. Yet considering that organic currently makes up just 4% of US agriculture; GMO crops make up almost all corn, soy, canola, sugar and cotton production in the US; our kids are getting fatter; and unhealthy food is getting cheaper, it sometimes seems like our movement – natural and organic foods – has barely made a scratch in the mainstream of conventional food.

“Let’s Retake Our Plates” is a Whole Foods Market initiative designed to highlight the things we all can do to continue this movement towards better food. In choosing between various types of food, we really are voting with our dollars and have the power to accept or reject so many ways of growing crops, raising animals, impacting the environment and feeding our bodies. The plate (or take-out container or smoothie cup or whatever) is the point where we, as eaters, intersect with the systems and practices through which that food is grown, raised, processed and marketed. Read the rest of this entry »

UPDATE 02/18/10: The comment period has been extended until March 3, 2010  You still have time to have your voice and opinions heard!  The easiest way to send your comments to the USDA is on the True Food Project’s Take Action website.

—————————————————-

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is currently considering whether or not to approve the use of genetically engineered (GE) Roundup-Ready alfalfa. Their report says you don’t care about GMOs in organics. Comments are due to them by February 16th, so read on to hear how you can help. (Or go directly to the True Food Project’s Take Action website.)

As part of the approval process, they are required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a detailed analysis of how the crop will affect the environment, organic and conventional farmers, farm animals, and the public. They’ve released their EIS on GE alfalfa, and here’s how the True Food Network at The Center for Food Safety summarized the issue in a recent Action Alert:

In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa. The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed the impacts of the plant on the environment, farmers, and the public in a rigorous analysis known as an environmental impact statement (or EIS). USDA released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009. A 60-day comment period is now open until February 16, 2010. This is the first time the USDA has done this type of analysis for any GE crop. Therefore, the final decision will have broad implications for all GE crops.

That Environmental Impact Statement, unfortunately, contains a number of questionable statements and conclusions. The part of the EIS that worries us the most is the claim that buyers of organic foods don’t care if those products are contaminated with GMOs (genetically modified, or genetically engineered, organisms). We know that nothing could be further from the truth, and that a huge number of our shoppers care deeply about avoiding GMOs in the foods they buy. Read the rest of this entry »

This just in: The USDA published its final rule on access to pasture for organic dairy animals this afternoon. This enhancement to the National Organic Standards has been in the works for many years, and its announcement is a major victory for organic consumers, the integrity of the organic label, and the lives of organic livestock.

While the National Organic Standards already require access to pasture for ruminant animals, this enhancement lays out very specific requirements:

• Animals must graze pasture during the grazing season, which must be at least 120 days per year;
• Animals must obtain a minimum of 30 percent dry matter intake from grazing pasture during the grazing season;
• Producers must have a pasture management plan and manage pasture as a crop to meet the feed requirements for the grazing animals and to protect soil and water quality; and,
• Livestock are exempt from the 30 percent dry matter intake requirements during the finish feeding period, not to exceed 120 days. Livestock must have access to pasture during the finishing phase.

We’ve supported this enhancement through our testimony and comments to the USDA and the National Organic Standard Board over the past four years. We intend to carefully review the final rule and provide our comments to the USDA.

This change is a giant victory for the integrity and continued growth of the organic label, since it adds clearer definition to the role of pasture in organic livestock production. Our experience with our customers confirms that there is an overwhelming consumer expectation that organic livestock are grazed on pasture, which allows ruminant animals to fulfill their natural behaviors.

Stay tuned for more updates, and for more information, check out the USDA’s press release and Q&A on the changes.

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a chemical used to make plastics and other materials used in many food packaging applications, from can linings to baby bottles (see my last post on BPA for some background). Many of us who have been working on the BPA issue for years were quite surprised, on Friday, to learn that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had changed its position on the chemical, admitting for the first time that they, too, have questions about its safety. For as long as they’ve had a position on BPA, the FDA’s position has been that it’s safe and suitable for food contact. With this announcement, the FDA admits that “on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.”

To translate: There still isn’t conclusive evidence that BPA is harmful, but there are a number of question marks that need to be resolved through research – and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) was just awarded about 30 million dollars to pursue that research. In the meantime, the FDA has announced its interim position and the steps it is taking regarding BPA: Read the rest of this entry »

Big news: We just announced that our 273 U.S. stores have been certified organic by CCOF (California Certified Organic Farmers). Those of you who’ve been paying attention know that we’ve been a certified organic retailer since 2003 – a voluntary certification that’s not required by the USDA. So what’s the big deal now? Well, last November, the USDA told us that it was about to get much harder to be a certified retailer. Rather than walk away from certification altogether, we opted to go down the much more difficult road of getting each of our stores individually certified. The USDA was right: it was much harder. But we did what it took and made it happen. That’s the news.

Here’s a bit of context. When USDA’s National Organic Standards went into effect in 2002, they defined organic in great detail, down to the specific substances that could be used, and required that everyone who handles organic food – growers, ranchers, processors, etc. – be certified by a USDA-approved third party organic certifier. Everyone, that is, except retailers. Huh? Yes, the whole supply chain for organic products must be certified, with the tiny exceptions of retailers and restaurants. These exceptions were made because they thought it would have been prohibitively difficult and expensive for all the retailers that carried unprotected organic food to get certified (by “unprotected” I mean unpackaged, like produce, meat, bulk grocery, etc.). So the USDA told retailers that they still had to follow the rules, but they wouldn’t have to be certified. And we told the USDA something to the effect of “So you think it’s too hard for retailers to get certified? We’d like to respectfully prove you wrong.” Read the rest of this entry »

Why am I grinning ear-to-ear on this steamy hundred-degree day in the middle of Texas? The reason is this press release, which announces our commitment to the Non-GMO Project and represents the culmination of a very long and complicated undertaking. I’ve been working on this project – helping the company come up with a way to truly verify our efforts to avoid Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in our private label products – for just over five years, and it would be an understatement to say that I’m ecstatic about this announcement. I’d even go so far as to say that this moment makes me extremely optimistic about the future of our food supply and the persistence, energy and integrity of the natural and organic food visionaries who propel our industry forward.

Read the rest of this entry »