The Future is Organic Blog

A Sampling of Responses from Around the Country on Washington WIC’s Decision to Boot Organic Milk and Baby Food out of the Washington State WIC Program. Compiled by me.

======
Nothing ever changes - the fact is that the poor never get the good food - just more obesity, disease, and addictions. There really are no excuses for that, any more then that parents in other countries  have to watch their children starve while we think we are “green” by putting food in our gas tanks, or our own Supreme Court Judges that allowed Greed to patent life and gave us GMO’s, (Lots of studies saying that’s not harmful either.) Stay tuned for a new non-profit “Healthy Food For Hurting People” (hopefully before the end of this growing season.)

We plan on a majority of our future food production to go to the disadvantaged. I’m tired of working so hard growing health for only those who can afford it. It’s just really TIME we stopped with the excuses, and do it ourselves.

“as you do to these, the least of us, so also you do to Me”

Claire Thomas
General Manager
The Root Connection CSA
wwwrootconnection.com
[The Root Connection is Washington state's oldest CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) farm]

======

To: <Cathy.Franklin@doh.wa.gov>
Subject: organic milk and WIC

As a practicing board certified Family Physician in the state of Oregon, I continue to be amazed at the influence of corporations and large agricultural lobbying groups on the decision making process for the various medical associations including the American Medical Association and the American Pediatric Association.  I realize that your hands are tied in regard to accepting the guidance of these organizations and you can only go by the available evidence base.  However, I also would argue that these issues in regard to non-organic milk and milk which contains bovine growth hormone have been inadequately studied.

Any scientist would point out that in order to adequately document an outcome, one must be able to control variables.  Because companies such as Monsanto have fought long and hard to prevent labeling laws for such things as bovine growth hormone, this type of research is impossible to carry out.  The other missing part of the research base is lack of long-term (30 to 50 year) outcomes.  We don’t know what long-term effects bovine growth hormone and pesticides found in milk will have on our population once these children on receiving WIC products are no longer considered pediatric.

I have been in medicine long enough to see large medical organizations perform an about face once longer term research becomes available.  Remember Vioxx (oops, people are having heart attacks) or hormone replacement therapy for women (hmm, these women seem to be having more heart disease and breast cancer.)  Part of having a scientific mind means not blindly trusting in large medical organizations and always being willing to challenge the conventional wisdom.

For that reason, I challenge your citing of the available scientific evidence base as proof that organic milk is not superior to non-organic milk.  I think this issue has not been adequately studied and the available evidence base is sorely lacking in long-term research.  I feel that until we have a larger long term outcome research base on organic milk that your WIC clients should still be given the option to choose organic milk or at least use a WIC coupon towards the partial purchase price.

Thank you for your time,
Maria Czarnecki MD

PS: When I look around to my physician colleagues (members of the APA and AMA), we are choosing to buy organic milk for our own children despite what all the fancy medical organizations say (or don’t say)….doesn’t that speak to something?

======

Well folks – lets do something about it.

To: Cathy Franklin  Cathy.Franklin@doh.wa.gov
Nutrition Coordinator
Washington State WIC Nutrition Program

I have recently read your rationale and justification for not including organic milk under WIC funding in the State of Washington.

As an organic farmer, it seems that Washington WIC maybe is being somewhat hypocritical - piously applying ’sound science’ and cost where it is convenient and politically correct, but probably not applying similar sound science where it may be unpopular.

To be fair, I would expect that your group should prepare similar documents and WIC exclusions for all food items containing:

- all food products containing high fructose corn sweetener (shown to likely increase diabetes and contain mercury)

- all food products containing white flour (whole grains have been shown to be far more nutritious and combat many diseases)

- all food products containing trans fats (linked conclusively by AMA to many diseases)

- processed soybeans and soy products (linked to thyroid disease)

- all foods that are not low-fat (AMA has proven links between high fat diets and obesity, diabetes, heart disease)

- all processed baked bread products (at least 2X more expensive than homemade baked goods)

- meal-ready snack vegetables (also at least 2X more expensive than fresh uncut-up produce)

- boxed macaroni and cheese ( not endorsed by the American Medical Association for being healthier than made-from-scratch with whole-grain macaroni and real cheese)

You get the gist.  If you are going to exclude organic milk on certain ’sound science’ and cost grounds, please be fair.  Please use the same criteria for every other food product you do accept.

Thank you.
Mary-Howell Martens
Penn Yan, NY

======

To: <Cathy.Franklin@doh.wa.gov>
Subject: FW: [wsffnet] “No Benefit to Children from Organic Food”: Washington State WIC

Dear Cathy –

I was forwarded your response about not allowing organic milk on the WIC approved food list for October 1, 2009.  I find this deeply disappointing, and a step backwards for those that rely on the WIC program to help feed their families but would prefer to avoid the additional antibiotics, pesticides and recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone found in conventional milk.  Who wants that stuff?  Not me.  And I don’t feel very good that my tax dollars are pushing families in need to ingest those extra unpleasant ingredients.

I also find it incredible that you would list the National Dairy Council as one of your expert sources on nutrition.  Many of the other sources you cite are subject to corporate bias and industry pressure, but clearly the National Dairy Council has an explicit conflict of interest – they’re an industry LOBBY GROUP for conventional dairy producers.  They’ve been sued (and found guilty) for funding and promoting bogus nutrition research.  The Federal Trade Commission has issued cease and desist orders to the National Dairy Council for misleading advertisement and promotion.  They are not a credible source.  Apologies for the ranting, but their “research” is not where you should look for trustworthy nutrition information.

In any case, please register my concern regarding organic milk’s removal from the WIC approved food list (and perhaps reconsider your expert sources:).

Sincerely,
Karen Uffelman

======

To: <Cathy.Franklin@doh.wa.gov>
Subject: RE: [COMFOOD:] “No Benefit to Children from Organic Food”: Washington State WIC

Cathy, as a fellow dietitian, let me try to shed further light on this issue.
First and foremost, as nutrition educators, I think we have a responsibility to question the research; we are certainly well qualified to interpret the research findings for ourselves. I think it’s unwise to leave the thinking entirely to others, no matter how well qualified they may seem.

Second, the notion that there is no benefit to children from organic food seems shortsighted to me. Let’s look beyond protein, fat, carbohydrate, vitamins and minerals and consider both the children eating food that had been sprayed with pesticides, as well as the children borne to parents exposed to pesticides.
If you subscribe to the United Farm workers list, you can read about the horrific birth defects suffered by children of farm workers exposed to pesticides. Please see attached.
Or: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/nj_fines_floridabased_tomato_g.html
The Pesticide Action Network is also a fantastic resource for research on the effects of pesticides: http://www.panna.org/
The Organic Center provides links to research showing the nutritional superiority of organic food.
See: http://www.organic-center.org/science.html

Finally, when it comes to children, shouldn’t we err on the side of safety?
The 2005 study showing levels of pesticide metabolites in the urine of children eating a conventional diet vs. an organic diet makes the choice pretty clear: www.organic-center.org/science.hot.php?action=view&report_id=26

When we limit ourselves to assessing cost only to what we pay at the checkout, we are not looking at the total cost — harm to our environment and future generations. I heard a great interview with the musician, Graham Nash over the weekend. He said children may be only 25% of the population, but they’re 100% of the future. We have to ask ourselves: what do we owe future generations?
If WIC programs required organic food purchases, just think how that policy decision might drive agricultural practices.
Just some food for thought.

Melinda Hemmelgarn, M.S., R.D.
Columbia, MO

======

That’s an easy one, just prove organic is better than the rest.

Johnny

======

That may not be as easy as it sounds. Galileo was convicted for saying the
earth was round and traveled around the sun at a time when ‘good science’
stated that it was flat and the sun traveled around the earth.

When biotech companies fund such a huge share of university research, it’s
amazing what kind of garbage can get passed off as ‘good science’.

There is good evidence that pesticide residues in food and the environment
are causing serious damage to the health of people and animals. We know
about the benefits of CLA’s in organic milk. We know about the health
benefits of a diet high in omega 3 fatty acids. We know that pasture raised
organic animal products are much higher in CLA’s and omega 3’s. Than
confinement raised conventional ones. We know about the higher
mineral/flavinoid/vitimin/etc contents in organic fruits and vegetables.

I could go on all day with good evidence that organic food is better. Why
does the clear connection (proven by university research ask me if you want
to see the citation) between roundup use and mycotoxins in grain seem to
escape notice by the ‘experts’?

As Albrecht once said: “It’s hard to get someone to understand something
when their livelihood depends on them not understanding it.”

======

To: Cathy.Franklin@doh.wa.gov

To add to this you site your largest reason is cost.  By making a decision to not approve organic milk based on a cost that is more reasonably fair to the farmer you are essentially deciding that it is ethical to exploit one group of people in order to get cheap food to another disadvantaged group.  This gets us nowhere.  I once heard from a conventional farmer while we were organizing a workshop on organic dairy production:  “You know what, when I was a kid my parents raised dairy.. and we sold our milk for $1.20 (I can’t remember the exact number) a gallon.  Today over 25 years later we still sell our milk for $1.30 a gallon.”  Though I don’t recall the exact wholesale price he gave me, I remember being utterly shocked that through decades of inflation and rising expenses for everything, he was still selling his product for nearly the same price his parents had- and was barely hanging in there with almost no savings for retirement. He’ll probably have to sell the farm to take care of himself once he retires.

Now if you make your decision based on price,   (aside from all the health benefits that organic milk has) then you should think about the ethics of that choice.  Just as the low wages that keep disadvantaged populations make them poor… so does a society and policy that obsessively seeks out cheap food.  Its all tied together here.  WIC recipients have a right to support farmers getting a higher price for a very healthy and nutritious product. They may have less money available as a result for other things- it should be their choice how they spend their coupons when it comes to this one.

Teresa Kurtak
Social Documentation Program
Community Studies Department
University of California Santa Cruz
831-600-5452

======

Jim Riddle is a well known and well respected authority on organic and sustainable agriculture who has indicated to me a strong desire to serve the Barack Obama Administration in some capacity at the USDA. He has indicated that his experience and background well suit him for consideration as Administrator of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service or the Organic Program Coordinator position that possibly is being created in the USDA Secretary’s office.

My friend and colleague, Goldie Caughlin, the Nutrition Education Coordinator at Puget Consumer Co-op in Seattle says “Jim and I served on the National Organic Standards Board together for five years. He is exceptionally knowledgeable and qualified, as I’m sure all who’ve had any amount of contact with him and his work are aware. He has a deeply evident sense of fairness and justice, and is the most diplomatic and patient educator and negotiator I believe I’ve ever known, remaining positive, diplomatic and cordial in even the most trying of circumstances — and there were many during the especially contentious times on the NOSB.” These qualities, and the experience represented in the following biographical sketch, in my mind help make Jim Riddle a person worthy of widespread support and I urge anyone reading this to contact your Congressional Delegation TODAY (especially if you have a Democratic Senator or two in your state) and voice your support for his consideration for a job at the new USDA. You should also send messages of support directly to the Obama Transition Team at
http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact.

Chrys Ostrander, Davenport, WA

Jim offers this statement as part of his expression of desire to serve in the new administration: “Given the challenges of climate change, ocean dead zones, groundwater contamination, soil erosion, energy, obesity, diabetes, food safety, farm subsidies, nutrition, and food security, the Obama Administration has the opportunity to make a significant shift in US agriculture policy by investing in cost-effective sustainable food and farming systems.

“The USDA must lead the transition to a green economy by implementing policies that support ecologically-sound food and fiber systems; conservation and environmental stewardship; renewable and efficient energy; and consumer-driven markets, providing stable and sustainable incomes for family farmers and ranchers; supporting vibrant, web-accessed rural communities; and encouraging a new generation of farmers, ranchers, and gardeners. There is work to do!” (more…)

There is surely a whirlwind of activity within the sustainable agriculture community as we gear up to meet head-on the opportunities suddenly afforded us in the changed political climate. And as usual, there are many organizations operating more or less independently of each other working up often duplicate policy campaigns without enough communication between them to maximally utilize the collective energies of their constituencies. I hope to see a bit more collaboration and unity in these efforts as we move forward(while recognizing that independence and diversity of thought also have their places).

Michael Pollan’s “Open Letter to the Next Farmer in Chief” seems to be a blueprint capable of unifying the sustainable ag/food security/environmental stewardship/nutritional health/green energy communities. In a blog post more recently, Pollan calls for a Food Policy Czar: “progress on the all-important issues of energy independence, climate change, and health care costs depends on reform of the food system–and, crucially, an ability to connect all those dots when making policy. The challenge is to align the goals of federal agricultural policy with the goals of public health, energy, and environmental policy (for the first time)…”

Pollan has committed to writing what I’ve felt for all of the 30 years I’ve been involved in the organic movement and sustainable ag - food and agriculture policy and practice are so central to just about all other human activity that the choices we make as a society in this arena profoundly influence the nature of that activity, and of our society. I continue to feel one of the best places to exert pressure to “change the world” is with food and ag policy. So a Food Policy Czar could be a great thing.

That being said, others have written that such a Food Policy Czar might just be a vestige of old-style thinking and that now is the time to explore revolutionary new approaches to solving the unprecedented problems facing humanity.

Perhaps what might be in order then would be to try and get the Obama administration to organize a domestic food and agriculture summit with the question on the table at the outset of whether a Food Policy Czar should be appointed and what might the charter for the position look like, or whether other approaches offer better prospects for the fundamental changes needed. To have a successful summit, it would be important to have some really good people in place within the USDA bureaucracy beforehand. To have a voice in this process, see this.

UPDATE (11/25/2008):

I’m sure many of you heard these two stories on NPR this weekend on Obama’s farm and rural policy agenda. For those of you who missed them, I’ve copied the links to them here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97309054
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=7

I took note of the following: “[Obama] pledged to hold a “rural summit” and deliver a package of rural initiatives to Congress in his first 100 days as president.” If it’s going to happen in time for Obama to have a legislative package ready in the first 100 days, then it must be in full planning swing already.

Here’s what I think: Rural affairs are about a lot more than agriculture and agriculture (and the food it produces) are about a lot more than rural affairs. So I propose we try and urge the Obama administration to hold two, parallel and simultaneous summits, in Washington DC– one for rural issues and the other for food and agriculture issues.

Why? Because while agriculture is intimately involved with rural America, it doesn’t define rural America in the 21st century and, increasingly, agriculture is becoming an urban issue as well (urban agriculture, development encroachment on farmland, food security, etc.) and food affects us all.

I also wonder if the best venue for the twin summits isn’t Washington DC– since they would be Presidential summits and having them in that city would be symbolic of the national, rather than regional, scope of the discussions. I think they might get more publicity in DC as well.

What do y’all think? Do you feel like you have energy to make a push for twin summits?

You could, individually or collectively contact your congressional delegation and urge them to try and influence the Obama Transition Team to organize twin summits. Also, you can send ideas about the summits to the transition team via:
http://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople

Read Obama’s Rural Policy Platform
(It’s a good read)

Help Get the Resumes of Great Sustainable Agriculture Advocates Under the
Noses of Obama’s Transition Team

Read Michael Pollan’s “Open Letter to the Next Farmer in Chief”
(another good read)

How About a National Food and
Agriculture Summit Early in Obama’s First Term?

(more…)