http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/06/natural-foods-label
What does "natural" mean?
- No artificial materials during processing
- No pesticides
- No artificial ingredients
- No GMOs
There's just one problem: There are no real federal regulations around the word "natural."
According to the USDA, "natural" meat, poultry, and egg products must be "minimally processed and contain no artificial ingredients."
But the agency doesn't go on to define "artificial." Meat from
livestock fed genetically modified corn, for example, can still be
labeled "natural," as can animals raised with regular doses of
antibiotics. And the USDA has no regulations at all for labeling natural
foods that do not contain meat or eggs.
Meanwhile, the FDA just has an informal policy that it issued in 1993, which gently recommends that manufacturers use the term "natural" if "nothing artificial or synthetic . . . has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food." In January 2014, the FDA "respectfully decline[d]" requests by three federal judges asking the agency for a decision on whether GMO ingredients could be used in foods labeled "all-natural." That decision led one of the judges to terminate a lawsuit against General Mills' Kix cereal, which, plaintiffs said, carried an all-natural label despite its use of genetically modified corn.
Even with the lack of regulation, plaintiffs can sue companies individually for false advertising—and in recent years, consumers have done just that. In 2013, PepsiCo. agreed to a $9 million class action settlement fund after plaintiffs complained about Naked Juice's "all natural" labeling that belied ingredients like genetically modified soy.
Attorney Stephen Gardner of the Center for Science in the Public Interest told the news site Real Clear Politics earlier this year that there have been around 50 "natural label" lawsuits in the past decade targeting products from Kraft Foods' Crystal Light "all natural" lemonade mix to Pepperidge Farms' Goldfish (which, plaintiffs said, contained ingredients from genetically modified soybeans). However, said Gardner, this list "only scratches the surfaces of the number of companies that are making these claims."
"There's so much green noise out there," says Urvashi Rangan, who directs the Consumer Safety Sustainability Group at Consumer Reports. "Labels can only succeed if you get rid of the noise."
Meanwhile, the FDA just has an informal policy that it issued in 1993, which gently recommends that manufacturers use the term "natural" if "nothing artificial or synthetic . . . has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food." In January 2014, the FDA "respectfully decline[d]" requests by three federal judges asking the agency for a decision on whether GMO ingredients could be used in foods labeled "all-natural." That decision led one of the judges to terminate a lawsuit against General Mills' Kix cereal, which, plaintiffs said, carried an all-natural label despite its use of genetically modified corn.
Even with the lack of regulation, plaintiffs can sue companies individually for false advertising—and in recent years, consumers have done just that. In 2013, PepsiCo. agreed to a $9 million class action settlement fund after plaintiffs complained about Naked Juice's "all natural" labeling that belied ingredients like genetically modified soy.
Attorney Stephen Gardner of the Center for Science in the Public Interest told the news site Real Clear Politics earlier this year that there have been around 50 "natural label" lawsuits in the past decade targeting products from Kraft Foods' Crystal Light "all natural" lemonade mix to Pepperidge Farms' Goldfish (which, plaintiffs said, contained ingredients from genetically modified soybeans). However, said Gardner, this list "only scratches the surfaces of the number of companies that are making these claims."
"There's so much green noise out there," says Urvashi Rangan, who directs the Consumer Safety Sustainability Group at Consumer Reports. "Labels can only succeed if you get rid of the noise."
Trust in Short Supply
Trust is one of those touchy-feely concepts spoken about in
polite circles. Even so it’s important, and in very short supply when it comes
to discussing environmental issues in general, and the demand for increased use
of high capacity wells in particular.
A lack of trust means people stop listening. That’s on top
of convincing evidence that people’s beliefs are way more important than new
information or facts. We come to our
beliefs through our upbringing, education, experiences, what we learn from people we trust.
Everyone in the debate over new irrigation wells says
they’re waiting for the science, the
peer reviewed proof that it’s OK, or
it’s not. Some say this because they
mean it. Others say it because it’s good public relations, still others because it delays the
government making a decision. I think most of the scientific proof we can expect is in, but that
doesn’t make getting to the proper decision any easier, and the lack of trust
is a big reason why.
Let’s state the obvious, that many in the general public
don’t trust potato farmers, and potato farmers don’t trust them. This Bermuda Triangle where thoughtful,
rational discussion and decision making
go to die is completed by the lack of trust by both in the government’s
willingness and ability to fairly enforce regulations. “Ghiz’ Gestapo” is what
some farmers are now calling conservation
officers, while many, many in the general public think conservation officers
only swing into action once the fish are dead.
This is really troubling.
The evidence I’ve seen including a pretty thorough
presentation by hydrogeologist Cathryn Ryan recently at UPEI is that there is
lots and lots of groundwater, and that irrigation would take just a small
single digit percentage of it. If this
were just a question of quantity, it would be a no brainer (as Stephen Harper would
say) but it’s not. That’s big picture
stuff, whereas water use and water extraction impact, is very local (see
Charlottetown). And there’s a further complication. When it comes
to potato production, it would be concentrated in a handful of watersheds that
are already dealing with high nitrate
levels. That’s where Dr. Ryan’s
“science” becomes important again. She had
good evidence that if these wells are placed properly relative to local
streams, and just as importantly cased for the first sixty metres or so, their
impact on stream flow and aquatic life would be greatly reduced. Water regulators need to demonstrate the
ability to find these low-impact zones, and farmers need to indicate whether
they’re prepared to live with them.
I am convinced that farmers do need the ability to irrigate,
and I think the need will only increase because of climate change. Let’s remember that it’s not just potato
growers who use irrigation. The demand
for quality at the retail/consumer level is very high, and if crops don’t get enough water at the right
time, quality can suffer, markets can be
lost. I also think used properly
irrigation can lesson the impact of nitrates, but this requires a lot of
precision and commitment from farmers to do this right. (there’s the issue of
trust again, because if there’s too much irrigation then excess nitrates will
be forced down into the aquifer.) And irrigation must not be a substitute for
good soil management, proper crop rotations, and building up of organic matter.
The lack of trust by many that farmers and government take these seriously
is again part of the problem.
Another big challenge
to trust is whether farmers would stop irrigating if told. It’s the middle of a long hot summer, there’s
been no rain for weeks, stream flow drops
by 35% or whatever figure is considered necessary to maintain aquatic
health (certainly no agreement there either), but a farmer has invested two
hundred thousand dollars in irrigating equipment, another half million in
inputs, and is facing a buyer that’s just lowered the base price and increased
quality standards. I can see the
conflict and hear the news stories that would generate.
The challenge is that trust must be earned, and that takes
time. There has to be actions and
results, not just news releases. I
think the government took a positive step making Todd Dupuis an assistant
deputy minister in environment department.
The danger for Todd is that his hard earned credibility on environmental
issues will be co-opted by the government.
Will he say the same things to government officials
behind closed doors that he’s said in public. I think he will. There’s
trust at work again.
I think the principles laid down by the Federation of
Agriculture are a reasonable way forward: an Environmental Impact Assessment of the
policy done by an independent third party; rigorous monitoring of current and
any future use of irrigation wells that includes local watershed groups
(something the government has not done well to date); the granting of any new permits would be done
incrementally and rigorously monitored;
granting of permits would have to
include proper nutrient management
and soil building practices. I would add one more: the need for more research on the
impact of irrigation on nitrates in groundwater in PEI soils. If that can’t be managed properly, I couldn’t support any further development of
irrigation wells.
I think the continuation of the moratorium is the right
decision for now. I’m hoping people can
take a breath and give the issue a little more thought. The issue has huge
economic, environmental, and political
implications. And it’s not going to go
away. Trust me.
No comments:
Post a Comment