Spotty Oversight of Organic Foods
May Prove Toxic
February 8, 2005
By Phil Wayne
As Kian Schulman carefully selects from the colorful
array of “pesticide free” vegetables lining
the grower’s stand on Arizona Avenue, she does
so confident that, by avoiding the likes of Endosulfan
and Metam 426, she is helping to ensure the health of
her Malibu family.
Like many who frequent the Wednesday Santa Monica Farmers
Market, Schulman, a registered nurse, presumes that
the food represented as “organic” or “pesticide
free” is, in fact, free of toxic chemicals or
pesticides.
But how can she be sure? Is the product tested for
residue once it leaves the farm? Almost never.
County agricultural officials “haven’t
come for years” to conduct random spot inspections,
said Laura Avery, supervisor of the Certified Farmers’
Market Program for the City of Santa Monica since 1982.
“In the old days… we had a few checks by
‘Ag,’ but none in years,” Avery said,
referring to initial inspections in the wake of Prop
86, which requires disclosure of any carcinogens.
Although the U.S. organic market is projected to reach
a value of $30.7 billion by 2007, with an annual growth
rate of 21.4 percent between 2002 and 2007, according
to the Organic Trade Association, oversight remains
limited.
Spot testing of the products for chemical residue after
they leave the farm is almost non-existent and a list
of offenders is hard, if not impossible, to get, leaving
consumers with little assurance that the organic products
they are buying have not been contaminated or mislabeled,
according to an investigation by The Lookout.
While the 2003 California Organic Products Act (COPA)
specifically states that “the director shall conduct
a program of spot inspections…to verify continuing
compliance,” the chances that any given product
has been locally tested for residue at the retail level
is about as good as winning the lottery.
In Los Angeles County , which has a population of 10
million, the agency responsible for spot checking fruits
and vegetables at farmers markets and grocery stores
plans to conduct a total of 12 inspections during the
2004-05 fiscal year, according to agriculture officials.
Of the 12 spot inspections, “There will be one
organic residue sample taken,” said John Schrader,
who is in charge of enforcing the organic program for
the Pest Exclusion and Produce Quality Bureau, the county
agency responsible for enforcing the state law as it
applies to fruits and vegetables.
“In addition, the Los Angeles County Agricultural
Commissioner Office will also respond to all complaints
involving the California Organic Food Act,” Schrader
said.
“I wish we could do more than we do,” said
Thomas A. Herrera, Inspector III with the county bureau.
In California, verification of compliance with organic
food law is focused primarily at the farm level. Agencies
accredited by the State visit farms, scrutinize their
operations, and then -- if they pass muster -- certify
them as “organic.”
But at the consumer level -- that is, at farmers markets
and retail tores that sell produce represented as “organic”
-- oversight is spotty, limited more to scrutiny of
required paperwork than of the product itself.
This leaves the consumer at greater possible risk from
accidental or illegal activity that might occur between
the farm and the market, such as contamination, co-mingling
with non-organic produce or outright switching of product.
With spot testing of organic produce at the retail
level rare, officials are often forced to rely on tips
and complaints that accidental contamination or foul
play has occurred along the way.
“We have found residues and have had successful
action based on a tip-off from somebody or a complaint
that’s filed,” said Ray Green, program supervisor
for the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) organic program.
Asked if residue had ever been found during spot inspections,
Green replied, “In just a random spot inspection
program, I don’t think we have come up with any
prohibited substance.”
Whether or not this is due to the rarity of testing
for residue in spot inspections was not clear.
While incomplete oversight of California-grown organic
produce may be a problem, it is by no means the only
one cause for concern. Operations that classify themselves
as “pesticide-free” or “all natural”
– as opposed to “organic” –
are subject to even less scrutiny.
And though foreign suppliers of organic food are supposed
to follow the same strict rules that apply to organic
farmers in the U.S., many growers and consumers doubt
this is always the case.
People “should be scared to death about foreign”
produce, said Truman Kennedy, who, with his wife Betty,
runs an organic farm that has been a mainstay at the
Wednesday farmers market for years.
Just back from a trip to Costa Rica, Kennedy claimed
that DDT and Agent Orange (which are banned in the U.S.)
are still made and used on some crops that are later
shipped to the U.S., though he said he doesn’t
know if that ever applies to produce represented as
organic.
Asked what oversight is provided to ensure that foreign
product labeled as “organic” is free from
non-compliant residue, Steve Lyle, Director of Public
Affairs for CDFA replied that “this is the responsibility
of the federal government,” without specifying
whether or not any testing takes place.
While focusing on the farms themselves is generally
recognized as acritical and successful component of
the oversight system, it may not be enough.
Reluctant to name names, some organic growers suggest
that hanky panky can occur after the farms are certified
“organic” or after clean product leaves
the farm.
Others, such as Rodrigo de la Cruz, who runs California
Organic Fruits, say they have heard of farmers who “call
themselves ‘organic’ …but they don’t
have the certificate.”
Pending legislation would require all certified organic
growers to post their certificate at farmers markets.
Since modern computers make asy work of forging a certificate,
however, spot testing of product may still be the last
line of defense against mistakes or fraud.
Asked if some farmers might occasionally skirt the
rules, Kennedy responded, “I’m sure there’s
some abuse. That’s human nature.”
Still, many who frequent the farmers markets place
their trust in the certified organic farmers themselves.
Farmers markets may be the most reliable source of
organic produce, since customers are buying direct from
certified organic growers, and there is less opportunity
for accidental contamination or fraud along the way.
“What you buy here is what I grow,” said
Kennedy, a relaxed, cheerful 62-year-old farmer with
silver hair and moustache. “Our leaves have been
tested, our soil has been tested, and our water has
been tested.”
If farmers market shoppers aren’t sure a grower
is really organic, Kennedy said, they should ask, “May
I see your certification?” adding, “You
should always go with your gut feeling.”
Kennedy “would encourage” more retail spot
testing and said he is considering having an independent
company lab-test his fruit to prove its purity.
In addition to trusting the farmers, some organic shoppers
place their faith in those who manage farmers markets.
“I always check out the managers and see how their
eyes are,” said Schulman, who praised Avery for
her running of the Santa Monica market.
But at retail markets, customers can’t look into
the eyes of the grower or get a gut feeling.
There, they are at the mercy of a system that relies
more on paperwork and trust – trust that foreign
growers do in fact consistently follow all U.S. organic
rules; that all shippers, packers and inspectors are
honest, and that no third-parties decided to cash in
on the lucrative organic food market by slapping “USDA
Organic” labels on tainted produce.
Yet at retail stores such as Whole Foods and Trader
Joe’s, enforcement is mostly limited to following
the paper trail.
Since records are not readily available to the public
and information provided by officials is sometimes inconsistent,
it is difficult for consumers to know how well the California
Organic Program is working.
While the 2003 Act mandates that a list of all offenders
be maintained and made available to the public, government
officials can’t seem to agree if there is such
a list and where it might be.
“I do not have a current list per se,” said
Green, who heads the California Organic Program. “I
suppose I could send a letter out to all commissioners
that have administered civil penalties in the past five
years and then compile such a list.”
“Since the county has taken the action,”
he said, “the best place to request a copy of
that action and all the related stuff would be from
the county.”
But, when asked if such a list is available, Schrader,
who is in charge of county enforcement, replied, “The
state does not compile a list of organic businesses
that have been fined.”
Meanwhile, Lyle, the public affairs director for the
state agricultural department, said, “We keep
county inspection data on file at CDFA headquarters,”
further muddying the waters.
Records of past lab residue tests performed by the
County are not readily available either. “Test
results for organic produce residue sampling are not
specifically assembled and made available to the public,”
said Schrader.
In the midst of the regulatory fog, one fact does stand
clear: a bumper crop of organic produce hits farmers
markets and retail stores every week.
In 2003, over 1.7 million acres of farmland were devoted
to organic product in California alone, according to
CDFA statistics.
But how much profit from the sale of organic foods
is harvested by honest farmers and how much may be reaped
by dishonest opportunists remains uncertain.
Asked if an increase of spot inspections might be on
the horizon, Green replied, “Not immediately.”
Source:www.surfsantamonica.com
|
