Is Dean Foods (Horizon Organic) Killing USDA Investigation?

I host a live weekly audio program called “The Celsias Show” and recently interviewed Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst from the Cornucopia Institute, one of the truly effective watchdogs of the organic industry. Immediately after the interview, Jill Richardson (who many of you know as OrangeClouds115) joined me in a discussion that covered, in part, the latest developments in Cornucopia’s ongoing effort to convince the Inspector General at the USDA to investigate appearances of favoritism at the agency that has benefited Dean Foods, the company behind Horizon Organic.

We also looked at the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to relocate the Plum Island disease facility to the mainland — a plan which appears to have been based on a flawed study.

Click here to listen.

Here is some background material for the topics covered in the show:

Topic one:

Cornucopia’s most recent complaint is the third filed with the USDA alleging Dean Foods has broken the federal law that governs organic production. Prior complaints also charged Dean was confining cattle on their two corporate-owned dairies, managing as many as 8000 head of cattle each.

Although the USDA, based on Cornucopia research, sanctioned or decertified two independent factory farms supplying Horizon, the federal agency dismissed both legal complaints against Dean Foods itself. According to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by Cornucopia, the USDA never investigated or even visited Dean’s largest corporate-owned industrial dairy, in the desert-like conditions of central Idaho.

“It appears that Dean Foods has more political clout in Washington than the two independent factory farm operators that were found to have been abusing the trust of organic consumers,” according to Will Fantle, Research Director at Cornucopia.

According to FOIA documents, Dean Foods hired lawyers at Covington and Burling, one of the capital’s most powerful and influential legal and lobbying groups, to plead their case. “The USDA closed complaints we filed in 2005 and 2006 without ever having visited the Horizon dairy in Idaho, and warned Dean Foods in advance before inspecting their Maryland farm,” stated Fantle.

And in choosing Covington and Burling for legal representation, Dean Foods has some strange bedfellows including the likes of Phillip Morris.
——————————————————–

Topic two:

Plum Island is located approximately 2.5 miles as the crow flies from the northeastern tip of Long Island, its closest mainland neighbor. For nearly 50 years Plum Island has been the home of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, which had been run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) until 2003, when the reins were handed over to the Department of Homeland Security.

Now this.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is considering the relocation of a research facility that holds the world’s most contagious livestock diseases from an island to the heartland of the United States.

The move is striking panic in the hearts of farmers who fear a nightmare epidemic. The Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell (D-MI) called the proposal, “utterly baffling.”

“Containing a major outbreak would be a Herculean if not impossible task,” said Leroy Watson, Legislative Director for the National Grange that represents 300,000 farmers and ranchers. Watson told Congress the disease “is twenty times more infectious than smallpox.”

An outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain last summer was traced to a nearby research facility. A 2001 British outbreak led to the slaughter of at least 6 million animals.

In a hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Nancy Kingsbury, the managing director of Applied Research and Methods at Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified that the decision by DHS to move FMD research was based on a 2002 USDA study that looked on at whether such a move was technically possible, ignoring any potential for human error.

We found that DHS has neither conducted nor commissioned any study to determine whether FMD work can be done safely on the U.S. mainland. Instead, DHS relied on a study that USDA commissioned and a contractor conducted in May 2002 that examined a different question: whether it is technically feasible to conduct exotic disease research and diagnostics, including FMD and rinderpest, on the U.S. mainland with adequate biosafety and biosecurity to protect U.S. agriculture. This approach fails to recognize the distinction between what is technically feasible and what is possible, given the potential for human error. DHS told us that this study has allowed it to conclude that it is safe to conduct FMD work on the U.S. mainland.

In addition to a number of other methodological problems with the study, we found that it was selective in what it considered in order to reach its findings. In particular, the study

1. did not assess the history of releases of FMD virus or other dangerous pathogens,
2. did not address in detail the issues related to large animal work in BSL-3 Ag facilities, and
3. was inaccurate in comparing other countries’ FMD work experience with that of the United States. – Nancy Kingsbury, managing director of Applied Research and Methods at Government Accountability Office

Further reading:

First, Imagine a Virulent Disease by Kos diarist shirah

Another Looming Bush Disaster by mcjoan (also DKos of course)

OrangeClouds115’s suggested reading for further background:

Testimony of Richard J. Dove from the Waterkeeper Alliance to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, March 13, 2002

Mad Cow USA: Could the Nightmare Happen Here? by John Stauber

Mad Sheep: The True Story Behind the USDA’s War on a Family Farm by Linda Faillace

Again, here’s the link to listen to the program.

——————————————————–

For even further background on a situation that Mark Kastel referenced frequently in the interview, here is a post that I wrote about last year at DSnodgrass.com

——————————————————–

Corporate Organic and the Beast that Devoured Itself

In an extraordinarily rare move, an industrial-scale dairy has been stripped of its organic certification due to serious violations of organic standards. Organic, Inc. author Samuel Fromartz broke the story at Chews Wise blog:

In a sign that pressure is mounting on big confinement organic dairy farms, Quality Assurance International, a major organic certification agency, has yanked certification for the Case Vander Eyk organic dairy in California, an operation with an estimated 3,500 cows.

This dairy in the central valley of California has been the subject of complaints by the advocacy group, Cornucopia Institute. But QAI’s decision marks the first time a certifier has suspended a big confinement dairy, though these farms have been criticized for years.

Reasons for the drastic measures include insufficient record-keeping in terms of verifying that Case Vander Eyk’s cows were managed in compliance with the USDA’s National Organic Program’s livestock standards, which apply to animals used for meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products represented as organically produced.

Animals for slaughter must be raised under organic management from the last third of gestation, or no later than the second day of life for poultry. Producers are required to feed livestock agricultural feed products that are 100 percent organic, but may also provide allowed vitamin and mineral supplements. Producers may convert an entire, distinct dairy herd to organic production by providing 80 percent organically produced feed for 9 months, followed by 3 months of 100 percent organically produced feed. Organically raised animals may not be given hormones to promote growth, or antibiotics for any reason. Preventive management practices, including the use of vaccines, will be used to keep animals healthy. Producers are prohibited from withholding treatment from a sick or injured animal; however, animals treated with a prohibited medication may not be sold as organic. All organically raised animals must have access to the outdoors, including access to pasture for ruminants. They may be temporarily confined only for reasons of health, safety, the animal’s stage of production, or to protect soil or water quality.

Case Vander Eyk Dairy has run what is commonly referred to as a split operation, i.e. an operation that produces or handles both organic and nonorganic agricultural products. This leaves considerable potential for legitimate error or outright fraud. While the use of pesticides and herbicides are allowed directly on commercial-production animals and the feed that they eat, such practices are forbidden in organic production, though industry insiders claim that mislabeling is not an uncommon occurrence.

Part of the farm’s record-keeping practice would be documentation of access to pasture. The Cornucopia Institute had first filed a legal complaint with the USDA against Case Vander Eyk in 2005 claiming violation of pasture rules.

The institute says Vander Eyk has access to 10,000 acres of pasture, but that is located near Ducor, miles from the dairy’s main operation. “The dairy reportedly trucks cows to the Ducor pasture, but the Cornucopia Institute contends that this approach is not used with lactating animals (those being milked).”

A group of students from UC-Berkeley toured the Case Vander Eyk farm as part of a research project. The following photographs were taken during the visit.

Vander Eyk’s organic certification was originally provided by Quality Assurance International (QAI), a private San-Diego based company. I asked Mark Kastel, Cornucopia’s senior farm policy analyst about QAI’s role in this.

“(Case Vander Eyk) would have received a Letter of non-compliance from QAI, which provides a 30-day period to respond. There is due-process built in. All farmers or processors who would be suspended have the right to appeal this. We were told that Mr. Vander Eyk did not take advantage of his right to appeal.”

“Let me say this in the strongest terms: Not only should QAI not have certified this company, no reputable company should have ever done business with them. This is just grossly wrong. They’re flim-flam operators.”

On Feb. 5, 2005, the same day that Cornucopia filed their original complaint against Case Vander Eyk, they filed a similar complaint against Dean/Horizon, the country’s largest organic dairy marketer. At that time, Case Vander Eyk was supplying milk to Dean/Horizon. One month prior to that, yet another very similar complaint was filed against Aurora Organic Dairy, another Dean/Horizon milk supplier.

In August of 2005, National Organic Program management ordered the complaints closed without investigating. Below is the memorandum which orders the dismissal, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Even though the memo specifies only Aurora and Horizon, the Case Vander Eyk complaint was dismissed at the same time according to Cornucopia.

Click on memo to enlarge.