Is Organic Still What We Know?
A long time ago, organic was simple. The word organic had a certain ideology association with it. It was about protecting soil quality, keeping the health of the planet safe for all of us living on it, and staying in balance by protecting bacterial and biological activity. Feed the soil and work with the planet. Give back in return. In short: Sturdy plants, happy animals, and most importantly no comprising the health of humans. The organic label was once about environmental standards, focused on maintaining biologically safe, active soil. That was long time ago.
In general “organic” food is farming without GMO’s and synthetic fertilizers. There are specific production and handling requirements that “organic” is often advertised on packaging. However, there's still no universal concurrence on it’s meaning because different regions, organizations or just really influential groups have overall different definitions and rules. So why is this?
The popularity and demand for organic food has increased over the years despite the cost premium. “Organic food” is said to be healthier and more ethical to consume from those who authentically hold the label. But have you ever wondered what it truly means and why “organic” has so fundamentally transformed from an alternative choice into a moral and social responsibility? There is growing concern about the fading integrity of the USDA. “Organic” has changed for marketing purposes, influence by big business for money. To be clear, our Monster Peppers integrity is exactly what “organic” was always intended to be for consumers that have higher needs and standards.
Does Big Agriculture Even Care About The Planet Or Organic Integrity?
Corporate farming is the practice of large-scale agriculture on farms owned or greatly influenced by large companies. This includes corporate ownership of farms and selling of agricultural products. As a result, corporate farming has a dangerous influence over global ecology.
There was a time when you could trust a product being 100% “organic” if it met National Organic Program’s (NOP) standards and carried the OMRI seal. What is the the OMRI seal? Organic Materials Review Institute or OMRI for short, is a seal on products that are compliant with organic standards. Allowed products are "OMRI Listed" and may display the OMRI seal. OMRI verifies input products intended for use in organic production. OMRI determines whether the product qualifies as “organic” under the USDA’S National Organic Program. If a product qualifies as “organic” under the USDA’s NOP standards, does that mean it’s “organic”? Not anymore. How is this allowed and why is this the case? As “organic” products grew in demand, corporate farming companies saw that there was a profit to be made using the word “organic”. They used their money and power to maneuver their way into manipulating the word “organic” itself and control positions in the National Organic Program.
In 1995, “organic” was defined by the National Organic Standards Board, the USDA’s expert advisory panel, as “an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain, and enhance ecological harmony.” Given the current model of the USDA “Organic”, it heavily relies on input substitution or input dependency, but most of all, lacks any direction towards sustainability and allows for poor animal welfare. This is not how the word organic was intended to be use by farmers.
In 2014 the National Organic Program (NOP) issued a statement saying that hydroponic production is allowed in “organic” certification. Hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic growers currently can earn “organic” certification. It is allowed by the USDA so long as the certifier can show there is compliance with the “organic” standard. The problem here is that hydroponic is a method of growing plants in a water-based, nutrient-rich solution that does not use soil. Mislabeling mega-hydroponic operations as “organic” is contrary to the principles of the organic standard.
Monster Peppers stands with organic farmers and consumers who believe the label must retain its integrity. While we do not currently grow in the ground, we can still qualify as USDA “organic”, but we understand that is not organic. Monster Pepper does container growing at the currently, but we do our best to tailor our growing medium to contain organic matter and build living ecosystems and maintain ecological harmony. We have Monster Integrity and we grow our peppers with respect towards the organic standards as best we can within our own economic limitations. We will never use any pesticides and Monster Peppers wont pass off our products as “organic” unless we can truly live up to the actual culture of the original meaning of organic used by farmers.
Consumers trust the “organic” label and pay so much extra for the assurance that it indicates a more healthful and environmentally-friendly way of producing food. Allowing hydroponic systems to be certified as “organic” undercuts the livelihood of actual organic farmers that take great lengths to support healthy soil. Hydroponic producers that get the benefit of the “organic” label without actually doing anything to benefit the soil undermines the standard and hurts all soil-based organic farmers. Organic agriculture has traditionally been defined as using soil requirements such as fostering soil fertility, improving soil quality, and using environmentally friendly farming. Hydroponics cannot be considered organic when the main thing, that is soil, is missing. For example, a great percentage of tomatoes, blueberries, and strawberries in the produce area of grocery stores are raised using the hydroponic method. Hydroponic fruits and vegetables are not labeled as hydroponics. Nothing says they have to be labeled as hydroponic and so consumers will never know the difference. They will however be labeled with the OMRI seal as “organic”.
To be able to use the word “organic” comes at a great cost. Big agriculture influences education, research, and public policy through funding initiatives and lobbying efforts. Agricultural lobbying in 2019 was valued at a little over $139 million (Stats). Based on the NOP’s final ruling, “organic” is USDA regulated so that only certified producers and processors can use it in their marketing and food labels. The government basically owns the word "organic" for food products, and so long as big agriculture abides by the rules, that they themselves have influenced, they can promote themselves as such.
While the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over the term “organic”, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) oversees “general food labeling compliance and safety issues.” In the absence of a formal definition of what it means to be “pesticide-free,” the FDA only requires that no pesticide residues are present. The administration does not expect that the foods were produced without the use of pesticides during all parts of production, including cultivation, processing, and storage.
Looking Down Memory Lane
GMO’s & Glyphosate
Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the United States, first registered for use in the USA in 1974. It is applied it in agriculture and forestry, on lawns and gardens, and for weeds in industrial areas. Glyphosate comes in many forms, including an acid and several salts. These can be either solid or an amber-colored liquid. There are over 750 products containing glyphosate for sale in the United States. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it will kill most plants. It is only absorbed through green plant tissue such as leaves and stems and prevents the plant from making certain proteins that are needed for plant growth. Glyphosate stops a specific enzyme pathway, the shikimic acid pathway. The shikimate pathway is a seven-step metabolic pathway used by bacteria, archaea, fungi, algae, some protozoans, and plants for the biosynthesis of folates and aromatic amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan)
Glyphosate is considered a moderate dose herbicide with relatively low acute and chronic mammalian toxicity, to the extent that mammalian risk is accurately reflected in required Environmental Protection Agency toxicology studies. After an long period of review, glyphosate was classified in 2015 as a “probable human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Exposure to glyphosate, the world's most widely used, broad-spectrum herbicide, increases the risk of harm towards human health. Glyphosate first was introduced as an herbicide in 1974. Since the mid-1990s, significant changes have occurred in when and how glyphosate herbicides are applied, and there has been a dramatic increase in the total volume applied. Usage of pesticides in the agricultural industry has soared, particularly since the mid-2000s when the practice of "green burndown" was introduced, in which glyphosate-based herbicides are applied to crops shortly before harvest. As a consequence, crops are now likely to have higher residues of glyphosate raising concerns that the herbicide could get into food products risking human dietary exposure to cancer. Animal studies and bioassays link it to endocrine disruption, DNA damage, decreased sperm function, disruption of the gut microbiome and fatty liver disease. Generations of children, now fully grown adults could have unknowingly had their health impacted over time by the industry practices of big business in agriculture. (They don’t care about you.)
Glyphosate has come under increased scrutiny in the past years. A growing body of research is documenting health concerns of glyphosate as an endocrine disruptor and that it kills beneficial gut bacteria and also damages the DNA in human cells. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with endocrine (or hormonal) systems at certain doses. These disruptions can cause cancerous tumors, birth defects, and other developmental disorders. Health risks that are associated with human pesticide exposure are: cancer, adverse effects on immune systems, neurodevelopment dysfunction, and metabolic diseases such as diabetes, among others. Pesticides may block male hormones, causing alarming, irreversible, adverse effects on male genital size and function as well as possibly disrupt the female reproductive system or hormonal function. Pesticides also may cause difficulty in breathing, headaches, neurological or psychological effects, irritation of the skin and mucous membranes, and skin disorders. Any system in the body controlled by hormones can be derailed by hormone disruptors. A number of cities, counties, states and countries throughout the world have taken steps to either restrict or ban glyphosate. However, Glyphosate still has a strong hold in Untied States Of America.
Genetically-modified herbicide resistant crops have been grown commercially since 1995, mostly in North and South America. These crops are genetically designed to tolerate specific broad spectrum herbicides, which kill the surrounding flora, but leave the cultivated crop intact. Most GMO’s are grown with Round Up, and over the course of time, there has been more public outcry for concern about these hazardous chemicals. GMO’s get a bad reputation by association with these growing practices of heavy pesticides usage. The vocal opposition of GMOs is growing, in the form of mismanaged studies and published misleading papers. An example is the controversial Séralini studies claiming that GMOs caused an increase in cancer, but coincidentally used a strain of rat that has an 80% chance of developing cancer in its lifespan. Gene manipulation and heavy pesticide usage is not a welcoming idea for any anti-GMO activist. However the GMO crop itself is not to be blamed, but the creator limiting the potential of what GMO can really provide. GMO technology can be used to introduce the creation of new kinds of foods that can be more accessible and affordable for the benefit of humanity, while also resolving many other problems. Big business is not exactly in the market towards reducing deforestation or put an end to heavy pesticides usage all together. Logically, GMOs would put end towards some business models that Anti-GMO’s dislike.
The first GMO food has been around since 1940, developed by Calgene. The Flavr Savr tomato was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an antisense gene that delayed ripening. Calgene was a biotechnology company based in Davis, CA. It was the first company in the United States to commercialized a GMO: the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994. However despite the huge success with the results of the tomato, they were not prepared for the undertaking of being tomatoes farmers and the result of this failure lead Calgene selling their biotech company. Monsanto bought Calgene mainly for their patents on key gene editing technology that would result in making billions by selling seeds infused with genes that can kill insects but also were resistant to strong weed killers made by Monsanto.
In September 2016, Monsanto was sold for $62.5 billion. The move came as part of the approved mega-merger sale of the American seed company to German pharmaceuticals and chemical company Bayer. (Big Agriculture and Big Pharmaceutical merger)
On December 18, 2017, U.S. EPA Releases Draft Risk Assessments for glyphosate. The draft human health risk assessment concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The Agency’s assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label.
A study has shown that traces of a glyphosate can be found in the majority of wine and beer.
A federal jury ordered Monsanto to pay more than $80 million in damages to a California school groundskeeper, whose cancer was caused by his use of the popular weed killer Roundup.
The Environmental Protection Agency reaffirmed its claims that the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup is safe.
United States Environmental Protection Agency says glyphosate does not cause cancer, contradicting International Agency for Research on Cancer. The EPA assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label. (Pesticides should not be politicized.)
Missouri peach farm, Bader Farms, seeks to hold the former Monsanto Co. accountable for millions of dollars in damage to his crops from herbicide drift.
A jury in U.S. District Court handed Bader Farms $15 million in actual damages and $250 million in punitive damages.Bayer executives sued for 'disastrous' Monsanto deal. The alleging Monsanto’s Roundup causes cancer, eroding Bayer’s share value.
Let’s Bee the Change We Want to See
The Blindfold represents objectivity and impartiality. The Scales represents the balance of the individual against the needs of society and a fair balance between interests of one individual and those of another. The Sword represents punishment, that Justice can be swift and final.
We must protect our local ecology and biodiversity. We need all of our microorganisms alive because they are part of the food web that keeps other animals alive, that keeps our soil alive, and ultimately that keeps our planet alive. Beyond just selling peppers, our goal is to educate others on how to ethically grow and be responsible producers.
The whole point of organic agriculture is making sure you keep the soil and wild life safe and fertile to protect both the environment and human health. If you treat the soil with harmful pesticides and chemicals, you end up with soil that cannot thrive on its own. We encourage you to grow food in a way that keeps your soil healthy with rich organic matter, nutrients, and microbial activity!
We need to change our approach, and we at Monster Peppers are all about that! Although we are a small business with a small team, we aspire to make big changes in the world. Together we can make change for the better. Your first steps towards being a grower will shape what the world will become based on what you do today.