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.
© Food Safety News